- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 00:28:54 +0000
- To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
- CC: "mail@makxdekkers.com" <mail@makxdekkers.com>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Hi Rob, all, > I still don't see why the ISO definition used is fundamentally inconsistent I think that's the wrong question. A more important question is whether the definition is useful for our purposes. And I don't think it is. One of the reasons being that it doesn't capture the most important things we agree on: profiles are identified by IRIs, and are a set constraints that apply to documents in addition to those of its media type. > how about: > > "A named set of constraints on one or more identified base specifications, including the identification of any implementing subclasses of datatypes, semantic interpretations, vocabularies, options and parameters of those base specifications necessary to accomplish a particular function. This definitions allows for the set of constraints may be empty, and specifications may be profiles themselves, so that all statements about conformance to a specification may be made using the single concept of a profile" > > too wordy perhaps, but has the explicit words we want and spells out the logic somewhat redundantly, but more accessibly. To be honest, I don't even understand that wording. Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 5 February 2018 00:29:21 UTC