Applying The Domain Profile Across Three Collections
These are design checks, not substitutes for a current warm-up. Each new run must inspect the real collection and pin official standards as of its research cut-off.
Comparison
| Domain decision | UK legislation | ONS data discovery | GOV.UK content |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical record boundary | Legal work, expression/version, manifestation and provision must remain distinct | Dataset/product, release, series, geography and classification may have different identities | Content item, edition, route, organisation, taxonomy term and attachment may have different identities |
| Source authority | legislation.gov.uk/TNA for supplied legislation metadata and effects; other legal source owners remain separate | ONS source products/catalogues for supplied metadata; reviewed live references remain distinct from governed snapshots | Publishing applications and GOV.UK APIs for their supplied fields; navigation observations are not editorial authority |
| Critical time distinction | enactment, commencement/effect, validity, amendment, publication and observation | data reference period/release versus catalogue creation/modification and acquisition | first publication, public update, edition, route/redirect observation and acquisition |
| Domain-standard candidates | ELI, CLML/LegalDocML, ECLI where source-assigned, Schema.org Legislation, PROV-O | SDMX, DDI, statistical classifications, DCAT/CSVW, SKOS, PROV-O | GOV.UK content models, Schema.org, DCAT for catalogue-like subsets, SKOS for governed taxonomies, PROV-O |
| False-equivalence risk | Same title or citation does not prove the same work/version/provision | Similar product titles do not prove one series or substitute dataset | A redirected URL, mirrored page or shared taxon does not prove identical content |
| Relationship evidence | Official amendment/effect data stays separate from model-discovered topics/entities | Series membership needs an explicit ID or source-declared scoped label; similarity is presentation-only | Browse links, taxon membership, organisation ownership and related-content links retain their distinct source predicates |
| Likely architecture | Large legislation child plus Whole-Law federation for independently governed source families | Large static discovery corpus with compact facets and provider datapacks | Large corpus; federation only where independently governed products justify it |
| Model assistance | Candidate topics/concepts/entities only, with evidence and independent review | Candidate semantic alignment or confusable-alternative discovery, never statistical fact authority | Candidate topic/entity/navigation enrichment, never editorial status or policy authority |
UK Legislation Assertions
A passing domain profile should:
- preserve source-native legislation identifiers;
- decide explicitly whether work/expression/manifestation/provision levels are material to user tasks;
- model official effects/amendments as source-derived assertions with observation time and evidence;
- use ELI or Schema.org as a tested projection rather than replacing CLML source meaning;
- show every broader Whole-Law source family as available, partial, restricted, unavailable or planned; and
- keep legal-answer evaluation bound to a dated corpus and independently verified evidence.
It should fail review if it creates amendment relationships from title similarity, represents a model topic as official legal classification, or claims complete Whole-Law coverage from legislation.gov.uk alone.
ONS Assertions
A passing domain profile should:
- distinguish a data product/series identity from each release;
- keep temporal coverage/reference periods separate from metadata catalogue dates;
- preserve source-declared geography and classification identifiers;
- adopt SDMX, DDI, DCAT, CSVW or geospatial standards only for the parts that actually emit conforming artefacts;
- use a governed snapshot/live-reference datapack when the UI compares a reproducible local snapshot with a later bounded provider observation; and
- evaluate confusable alternatives and metadata gaps explicitly.
It should fail review if a catalogue metadata_modified value becomes the
dataset's latest data period, similar titles alone create a series identity, or
metadata completeness is reported as statistical accuracy.
GOV.UK Content Assertions
A passing domain profile should:
- define whether its stable unit is a content item, edition, route, representation or another source-native record;
- record route and redirect behavior separately from content identity;
- distinguish editorial ownership, publishing-application custody, organisation association and navigation/taxonomy placement;
- preserve GOV.UK source terminology before mapping to Schema.org, DCAT or SKOS;
- include attachment, format, accessibility and withdrawal/replacement semantics where evidenced; and
- test whether a system can navigate content and inspect why an item is related, not merely retrieve pages by text.
It should fail review if all links become one generic relatedTo predicate, a
live route is treated as a permanent edition identifier, or a broad GOV.UK
coverage claim lacks a declared union of sources and omissions.
Shared Result
The three profiles differ in entities, standards and time semantics but feed the same build controller:
- immutable source receipts;
- source-native normalization;
- OKF 0.2 Markdown;
- optional YAML-LD/JSON-LD/RDF with semantic equivalence;
- an appropriately sized Explorer data plane;
- evidence-bearing relationships and facets;
- user/task evaluation;
- frozen-candidate assurance; and
- identical RC-to-final promotion.