- From: Stephen Richard via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 18:48:36 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I like the approach that 1) a profile is a specification that restricts one or more other specifications in some way. 2) a specification consists of rules/conformance classes/constraints (choose your favorite terminology) that dictate how some particular artifact can be validated as conforming to the specification. 3) A specification is an abstract concept. It is essentially like an FRBR work; there are various manifestations/expressions (maybe @kcoyle can clarify) of the specification as executable rules (shacl, shex, xsd, schematron.......). It's debatable whether these are 'representations' of the specification, or 'related resources'; either approach can work, choose one and be consistent. 4) artifacts that conform to a profile will also validate according to the rules of all base specification for that profile. 5) A profile may use elements from other specifications without inheriting conformance constraints from those specifications. These are not 'base specifications', they are 'related specifications' (or choose some other relationship terminology that you like). The profile must express any relevant rules for the use of these sort of elements. -- GitHub Notification of comment by smrgeoinfo Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/802#issuecomment-470227981 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2019 18:48:38 UTC