RE: Outcome of profile definition discussion

Sorry to be a pain here, but I'm concerned about the use of "constraints" in the definition, as it could lead to misunderstandings.

Formally speaking, "constraints" imply a closed-world assumption, which would mean that RDF vocabularies and OWL ontologies are not "profiles".

I think it would be worth clarifying that we use "constraints" in a general sense, including also the RDFS/OWL notion of "restriction".

I'm afraid I have no smart proposal at the moment, but maybe, for a working definition, "A named set of constraints or restrictions" could be a starting point.

Andrea

----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/


----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 6:37 PM
>To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Outcome of profile definition discussion
>
>
>
>On 07/02/18 17:13, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>>>> - "including the identification [...]" gives a focus to the definiton but doesn't
>formally excludes the things we don't want into (MIME types, programming
>languages...). Someone may still argue that it's possible to use it to include
>these things.
>>
>> Could be done by changing
>>
>>> A named set of constraints
>>
>> into
>>
>>> A named set of constraints for the representation of documents
>>
>>
>
>It would be fine for me!
>
>Antoine

Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 18:26:25 UTC