W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > January 2019

Re: Agenda January 23, 2019 - Profile Guidance subgroup

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:23:24 -0800
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <da57474f-6c5a-a495-2f0a-e88c658d3f5e@kcoyle.net>
Two things:

1) where are the comments related to the ESWC paper? They need to be
public for them to "count" as community comments on our work. (Also, not
having seen them I obviously have no replies.) Also, do they actually
refer to the prof gui paper (which doesn't yet exist) or did this get
confused with the ontology deliverable?

2) I think this discussion about base specification is ... odd. There is
no universal concept "base specification", it's not something that
exists outside of this document. It's not a "named thing" it's a noun
with an adjective. It says that a profile is something that is based on
something else. That's all.

kc

On 1/23/19 1:37 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> And I have answered in the issue too (well, a PR in fact :-) ) Anyone
> who feels like it, please chime in there!
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> On 23/01/2019 00:16, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
>> Hi Antoine,
>>
>> No, not really comfortable with it, sorry! So far, the use of the
>> phrase "base specification" in text is inevitably linked in the mind
>> of the reader to the Base Specification class definition. If we remove
>> the class, we would, at the very least, need to re-examine all uses of
>> "base specification" but, my preference, is to just remove the term
>> altogether and then, on a second reading of the spec without both Base
>> Specification and "base specification" determine appropriate wording.
>>
>> I'll add this comment to the Issue.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 6:59 AM
>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Agenda January 23, 2019 - Profile Guidance subgroup
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm probably going to not be able to attend this one, sorry.
>> I have one extra agenda point: are you ok with my last proposal at
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/664, i.e. proposing a list of the
>> 'base specifications' that I think we should keep? If yes then this
>> would allow us to make progress on this PR.
>> I'm also happy if someone else wants to take the lead on this, of course.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> On 22/01/2019 12:31, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
>>> Agenda for the next Guidance group meeting:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:ProfGui-Telecon2019.01.23
>>>
>>> Main points:
>>> * ESWC paper review – this will likely take the whole meeting as we
>>> have 4 detailed reviews
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> *Nicholas Car*
>>>
>>> /Senior Experimental Scientist/
>>>
>>> CSIRO Land & Water
>>>
>>> E nicholas.car@csiro.au <mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au> M 0477 560 177
>>> <tel:0477%20560%20177> P 07 3833 5632
>>>
>>> Dutton Park, QLD, Australia
>>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2019 16:23:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2019 10:33:29 UTC