Re: Agenda February 6

At this stage I cannot see where the definition does not cover any
identified cases - but if we can come up with a specific example within
scope we show is not adequately expressed the we will need to revise.

 - there seem to be two other substantive concerns  -
1) how to explicitly state this is different from MIME type negotiation -
which is true, but is in fact implicit in the definition. Suggest a
suitably simple wording for the clarifying "this is not X" statement and I
for one would support adding it.
2) what a profile is a profile of - - agree "standard" is too specific -
"specification" may be a better term?

there is also a worry that the definition is too broad - so its
simultaneuously too narrow and too broad, which is interesting.  I
certainly think it shouldbe broad enough to cover existing profiles
(written as guidance doicuments) as well as possible constrain languages,
or mixtures of the above. So maybe it comes down to what a "specification"
scope is - but IMHO is simply any specification within scope of DCAT
concerns - any aspect of whatever a Dataset is - which is a separate
discussion about scope. Lets leave the scope issue to that discussion, but
maybe make this explicit.

At any rate, we need explicit examples to reject, narrow or broaden the
defintion, grounded in our Use Cases and Requirements, and if necessary UCR
change proposals if there is something missing.

Rob




On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 at 14:54 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Ruben, could you take either Rob's or Antoine's suggested wordings and
> add what you think would make one of these acceptable to you? We'll need
> a text to get to approval.
>
> Thanks,
> kc
>
> On 2/2/18 8:16 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >>> 2) define "profile"
> >
> > Since I won't be at the meeting, I'd like to point to my concerns with
> the current profile definition draft.
> > They are listed here:
> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext#Comments.2Fobjections
> >
> > My main problem is that the current draft for a common definition
> > does not reflect the efforts we did earlier, so it's not really “common”
> at the moment.
> > Specifically, there is no distinction between a media type and a profile.
> >
> > So I object to the draft as currently proposed,
> > and am open to further discussions.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ruben
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
>