W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > November 2017

Re: UCR hard deadline

From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:23:38 +0000
To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
CC: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <648ABEA3-15D5-4749-92A2-2509F9E0F504@ugent.be>
Dear all,

I have been through the "6.8 profile" section of the requirements,
and have the following remarks:

 in 6.8.1, items 9 and 15 seem to overlap (parents being a specific case)
 in 6.8.1, item 10 seems overly specific and can probably be combined with 9
 in 6.8.1, item 16 is too strict. Either make it "may" or "should", or remove it
 in 6.8.1, the remark at the end of 19 should probably be removed
 In 6.8.1, as discussed during the F2F, I think we don't sufficiently differentiate between the profile as a concept (e.g., "a profile for author metadata") versus the document that expresses the constraints (e.g., "authors have one last name"). We could have a requirement for "Definition of the concept 'profile'", and a separate requirement for "Representation of a profile" (which could be 6.8.4). Looking at the list in 6.8.1, the following items would be part of the second requirement: 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19
 (editorial) copy/paste error at the end of 6.8.1 13
 (editorial) inconsistent capitalization in 6.8.1 1319
 6.8.2 introduces "information profile", this should simply be "profile"
 in 6.8.4, "profile information" is probably not the good term. I think we should use "representation".

Best,

Ruben
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2017 14:27:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2019 10:33:20 UTC