The new version 7 comes with the possibility to generate Profiles and export them as dcp files. Are these files generic, so I can use them in other apps, such as Lightroom, or are they specific to PL7?
PL7 creates a single illuminant pure matrix profile w/o tone curve (so default tone curve will be used, which differs between applications, etc) … DCP can be used in other applications ( make sure it writes Adobe ACR/LR compliant camera model name inside ) but you are better off using other applications ( there are number of free applications ) because what PL7 creates is well below par ( for ACR/LR one must understand that PL7 is using CM1 tag for matrix, so WB compatibility with ACR/LR in terms of what UI slider there show vs Adobe supplied profiles is 
- it is not the end of the world of course - just what UI displays, but inconvenient - for some … for example what UI displays for WB “As Shot” will be different between Adobe’s profiles and what PL7 creates… this is again just a visual inconvenience, as Adobe long time ago moved to use CM tags for WB and FM tags for color transform … using CM tags for both without FM tags is a legacy style abandoned in practice may be close to 10 years ago ? ) - unless you are totally helpless in that matter ( which seems to be the case based on the question you asked )…
start with reading ( more than once ) and clearly understanding what is written about camera profiles in the following 3 pieces ::
https://torger.se/anders/dcamprof.html
https://torger.se/anders/photography/camera-profiling.html
https://www.lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/
then you can hopefully make an educated decision about what you were doing
That’s a lot to take in, but you definitely made me understand that PL7 should not be considered as a proper tool for camera profiling. Thanks!
Creating profiles from color checkers with DPL7 is intended to be used to correct color shifts caused by lighting rather than for camera profiling. Get back control in photos taken with mixed lighting.
not for general camera profiling, but … in DxO PL7 itself vs DxO’s own canned profiles you might (A) like it more than canned profiles ( you can’t argue about a subjective taste ) - AND / OR - (B) in fact it might deliver better match to real colors of the target ( real as in take a spectrophotometer and measure ) vs DxO’s own canned profiles for a given camera model ( but then again it will simply show that whoever did canned profiles did a bad job, if - for example - for a plain daylight dusk to down light/illumination this feature beats what DxO canned itself … granted for some twisted spectrum you can’t blame canned profiles, but otherwise expectations are from a reputable software vendor to provide some sort of faithful / neutral camera profile w/ pretense for “accuracy” … I’d say that pretense for “accuracy” is to deliver <= ~2 dE2K for CC24 set of patches on average and <= ~4 dE2K max / worst case scenario patches and those are not greyscale ones of course - but couple of colored ones )
that is not what marketing said on record - “create your own calibrated color profiles from within PhotoLab for scientifically accurate colors.”
now I see that at least in a pinned post “scientifically accurate” were removed ( thankfully , may be marketing had a frank chat w/ somebody in engineering ? ) and now replaced by “perfect color rendering” ? What a win for decency ! DxO still boasts that this single matrix profile “ensures a calibration pathway that is second to none” though …
Also DxO needs to remove this factually incorrect part = “For the first time within a RAW image editor, DxO PhotoLab 7 lets photographers calibrate images directly within the interface.”… this is NOT true, others did way earlier and better
Marketing! Always to be taken with a grain of salt. Marketing superlatives are a) intended to influence people into buying and b) often wander at the edges of truth and hope.
Moreover, the goal is to bring colours closer to how they should look, be it by “scientifically correct”, “perfect” or whatever approaches.
When you argue scientific method, your words should be chosen with scientific rigor.
Just to be consistent and more than that, credible.