Profiles should provide both machine and human readable views (6.1)

[kcoyle]

#75

[aisaac]

F2F3 clarification: this is different from e.g. #209 . For example this ticket could be about providing a human-readable view of a machine-actionable specification

[nicholascar]

Is this really a necessary Issue? Doesn't Linked Data generally work presuppose this?

[aisaac]

@nicholascar yes LD receipes recommend this but our context is not bound to LD only, I believe, and some things are better said twice than none - especially for people who are not familiar with LD or have doubts about some of its receipes.

[andrea-perego]

+1 to @aisaac . This is also a principle repeated in different contexts of the Data on the Web Best Practices. We are definitely not bound to LD, but IMO we should take on board the DWBP BPs (which are also non-LD-centric).

[akuckartz]

We are definitely not bound to LD

No? I wonder: what does that imply?

[andrea-perego]

@akuckartz , the point is that this deliverable is not just about profiles defined and published following LD principles.

Not sure this answers your question, though.

[azaroth42]

Suggest changing the issue title to make the distinction with #209 clearer. How about: ... should be able to reference both ... ?

[kcoyle]

Reference? No, I think a profile has to be something else, not just a reference.

[andrea-perego]

@azaroth42 said:

Suggest changing the issue title to make the distinction with #209 clearer. How about: ... should be able to reference both ... ?

+10 to changing the title, which is now basically identical to the one of #209.