The AP Modelling blog and associated UML model demonstrates a DCAT and DCAT-AP profile. This allows masking classes and tailoring properties to a specific application.
Toggling, i.e. masking or activating the classes for a specific AP by means of a stereotype may not be needed. One could argue that it's easier to create either
a "AP container" class that refers to the selected AP concepts. This is tried and tested in a XSD context where the container class turns into a root element of an XML document - which is close to an information exchange use case. or
an AP package where active classes are specialised from the ones in the ontology. An AP would be created from the package's XMI. or
a diagram that offers an "AP view". Only the classes in the diagram are used in the AP.
Subsidiary questions;
the class application profile inherits from TerminologyProfile::ScopeIdentifier and Profile Constraints::view specification. How and where are these defined ?
did you investigate existing technology profiles such as the ODM ?
the Class meta-class has a boolean attribute isActive which supposedly indicates that this concept is used in the AP. Is this orthogonal to the "Mandatory/Optional" toggles on the Class ? There already is an "active" switch on the class (see right panel).
The AP Modelling blog and associated UML model demonstrates a DCAT and DCAT-AP profile. This allows masking classes and tailoring properties to a specific application.
Toggling, i.e. masking or activating the classes for a specific AP by means of a stereotype may not be needed. One could argue that it's easier to create either
Subsidiary questions;
Classmeta-class has a boolean attributeisActivewhich supposedly indicates that this concept is used in the AP. Is this orthogonal to the "Mandatory/Optional" toggles on the Class ? There already is an "active" switch on the class (see right panel).