W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > January 2018

Re: Defining Profiles

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:28:20 -0800
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <47681909-1596-3310-9a89-b220f020b5c3@kcoyle.net>
Antoine, that's an interesting suggestion, to wrap up conneg first with
a broad definition. If the conneg sub-group (which I assume is Ruben and
Lars, but don't know who among the others wishes to participate) feels
they could produce a first draft without much more discussion of
"profiles" then the Guidelines group could move ahead and we could
reconcile any differences later.

Other comments?


On 1/9/18 11:56 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Karen,
> I'm jumping in without having had the time to read the long threads
> entirely nor to react to them... but if indeed there are two definitions
> that the group can't seem to reconcile right now, then it sounds a good
> idea to split the discussions. And btw perhaps try even not to have a
> discussion on profiles in the context of DCAT update at the same time
> (as it appears in the last thread).
> In terms of schedule though, I'd be tempted to suggest doing the other
> way round. I.e. wrap up the Content Negotiation deliverable without too
> much commitment on what a profile is. This way the Guidance document
> could be instructed by a practical approach - I believe that the
> 'functional' aspect will be easier to determine with practical
> technology (i.e negotiation) being specified. In this approach, it would
> make sense to make a lot of progress on the DCAT update before pushing
> on the Guidance too.
> On the other hand I see that there is much value if we could get an
> agreement for the Guidance doc soon enough, and if the Guidance doc
> specifies how to document a profile and what sort of spec is in a
> profile, then this is excellent 'functional' progress too.
> So maybe in the end the timing/sequence doesn't matter much. What is
> important is that we accept to be very relaxed about discrepencies and
> vagueness in our definition(s) of profiles for some months.
> From an editorial perspective this can be done with a big fat warning in
> front of each document, saying that the definition of profile is not yet
> stabilized - and perhaps even calling for readers to help us on it.
> Cheers,
> Antoine
> On 09/01/18 18:59, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> All,
>> I'm beginning to wonder, after reading and answering comments on our
>> profiles discussion page, that it may be clearer to separate the two
>> deliverables, Profiles Guidance & Content Negotiation, until we have
>> clarified them independently. My feeling is that we are using the term
>> "profile" in different ways for the two deliverables, and that is
>> causing confusion.
>> Our timeline (and perhaps simple logic) requires the Guidance
>> deliverable to precede the Content Negotiation deliverable. If we can
>> reach agreement on this in principle, and work to develop a definitional
>> and perhaps also functional basis for the Guidance deliverable, we can
>> then determine how that fits with the Content Negotiation deliverable,
>> and if they can share the definition of "profile" or if adjustment needs
>> to be made.
>> Note that it is instructive to look at the requirements for profiles in
>> the UCR.
>> Let me know if you think this makes sense as a workflow.

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2018 20:28:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:56 UTC