As discussed above, SAIF provides a multitude of ways of depicting data. Where the intention is to share data, difficulties may arise due to different representations. Additionally, it is not expected that commercial database or GIS vendors will be able to handle the myriad of options available. The very richness of SAIF can lead to operational ineffectiveness if there is not some kind of agreement as to how SAIF is to be used.
To address this problem a distinction is made between a base standard and a functional standard. SAIF in all its entirety is considered a base standard. Various functional standards can be defined which provide strong guidelines as to just how SAIF may be employed. Each functional standard, termed a SAIF profile, is governed by a set of rules and restrictions.
For example, a SAIF profile may be established to handle spatial data where the geometry is represented by typical vector structures. It may recognize polygons, certain types of arcs, and certain types of points, but not any other geometric types. Particular types of coordinates and specific ways of handling time may be stated as allowed. As well, the profile may give limits on levels of recursion on objects defined as composites. Certain relationships may be identified as allowable. It could also specify a minimum set of metadata which must be completed. To aid processing, the order of objects in a data stream or file may be specified as part of the SAIF profile.
Through the development of SAIF profiles, data sharing among interested parties may be facilitated by agreement to use a common profile. Vendors may develop translators to work with certain profiles. Similarly, translation to and from other neutral formats such as SDTS or DIGEST will also be easier by using prescribed profiles. Detailed descriptions of SAIF profiles may be found in companion documents.