Re: Outcome of profile definition discussion

The OED definition of constraint is "a limitation or restriction".  I think
if we are talking formal OWL semantics at any point we should explicitly
state this.

No harm IMHO adding the clarification - keep it out of the definition.

The definition uses the words "including" for the examples, so subclasses
may be a narrower term than needed, but its not exclusive.

"structure" is a good point - many specifications will constrain structure
for data objects - i.e. specify a schema. But it possible that others wont,
so it could be defined by a profile.

I have annotate wiki with clarifications around a number of issues raised.

Rob


On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 at 07:19 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:

>
> I dont think we should feel shy about trying to improve this - at least we
> have focussed in on a basic understanding and working definition.  I have
> updated the wiki page for now..
>
> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 at 05:25 <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>