RE: Profiles in Linked Data

Hi John,

On Monday, May 11, 2015 6:07 PM, John Walker wrote:
 
> Hi Lars,
> 
> > On May 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > I note in the JSON-LD spec it is stated "A profile does not change the
> semantics
> > > of the resource representation when processed without profile knowledge,
> so
> > > that clients both with and without knowledge of a profiled resource can
> safely
> > > use the same representation", which would no longer hold true if the profile
> > > parameter were used to negotiate which vocabulary/shape is used.
> >
> > Yes, I noted that text in RFC 6906, too, but assumed that "unchanged
> semantics of the resource" meant that both representations still describe the
> same thing (which they do in my case). Would a change in description
> vocabulary really mean that I change the semantics of the description?
> 
> If it is exactly the same information in both representations (but using a
> different vocabulary), then you could argue the semantics are not changed.
> However I would expect that one representation would contain more/less
> information that another and that each vocabulary might have different
> inference rules, so indeed then semantics would differ.

I see your point. I guess we don't have a precise definition of what "different semantics" means.

> >
> > If so, I'd be happy to call it not a "profile", but a "shape" instead (thus
> adopting the vocabulary of RDF data shapes).
> 
> I don't mind what term we use, so long as it is clear to all concerned what is
> meant by that term :)

Right now my impression is that nothing is clear to anyone... I'll use both terms for a while, referring to the beast as "profile/shape".

Best,

Lars

Received on Monday, 11 May 2015 17:08:17 UTC