Clarify if DCAT's use of ProfileDesc

[nicholascar]

Is DCAT expecting to implement a profile of ProfileDesc or a DCAT-aligned set of terminology or will it follow the vocabulary as-is?

In the draft version of the conneg document, the Requirement #73 is answered by addressing the general case (profile listing of a resource) and then notes are given on the DCAT-specific answer given that the Requirement gives DCAT listing of profiles as the motivation.

If DCAT is to adopt the general, ProfileDesc mechanics of profile listing, no special menthoin needs to be made.

If DCAT is to adopt specialised terminology (profileing ProfileDesc) then what reference, if any from DCAT to ProfileDesc needs to be made?

[rob-metalinkage]

I don't think DCAT needs to normatively describe DCAT profiles. What it can do is reference the Profile Guidance doc as to practices, and then it could reference the profiles ontology in an example.

The touchpoint in terms of reference profiles within DCAT records is simply via dcterms:conformsTo.
This should note that the "dcterms:Standard" will general be some form of profile of a general standard that a community uses to constrain its implementation, and that such profiles SHOULD be formally described using dereferenceable URIs , and MAY be described by resources using the profiles vocab ?

The third distinct touch point is with regard to catalogues of profile descriptions - its not clear to me if thats in the DCAT scope yet - but the profile/DCAT alignment vocabulary allows this to be achieved.

[davebrowning]

See also #430

[davebrowning]

This issue/question was picked up again as part of #1089 (reviewing overall issue status as DCAT raises it transition request for CR). Given the decision earlier this year for DXWG to prioritise work (and put profile guidance on hold) the DCAT spec hasn't implemented any profiles using Profile Desc (or made reference to profile Desc(or any other statement beyond what DCAT 2014 made). From a DCAT perspective, this could (and probably should) be picked up as part of future work, but only when ProfileDesc (and profile guidance) was moving forward.

[andrea-perego]

This issue/question was picked up again as part of #1089 (reviewing overall issue status as DCAT raises it transition request for CR). Given the decision earlier this year for DXWG to prioritise work (and put profile guidance on hold) the DCAT spec hasn't implemented any profiles using Profile Desc (or made reference to profile Desc(or any other statement beyond what DCAT 2014 made). From a DCAT perspective, this could (and probably should) be picked up as part of future work, but only when ProfileDesc (and profile guidance) was moving forward.

As work on profile guidance did not progress, the conditions above are not met, so I propose to close this issue.

[andrea-perego]

Thanks, @kcoyle . Closing this issue.