- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 03:27:13 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I would note that the ISO definition of standard is a narrower form of the DCMI version. ISO standard is not a thing - its a class of things (though of course the class definition is a thing, but that is the inherent OWL punning) OGC has deprecated the use of standard in favour of "specification" - which avoids clashes with ISO's narrower definition and the broader range of community processes OGC supports. "specification" is probably a narrower form of dct:Standard where the rules are in fact expressed - it must have at least one supporting document. We have just got rid of "base specification" which was a specification with supporting documents that is not declared to profile anything else - i think its wise to remove it because we may simply not wish to declare what it constrains. I am comfortable we can and should use the dct:Standard as a superclass and push any debate back to DCMI. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/722#issuecomment-460500345 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2019 03:27:14 UTC