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" <[email protected]> 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
