- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 02:22:41 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Its true that "To demonstrate conformance a system MUST implement all elements of the abstract model." however that is true only of the abstract profile. This doesnt detract from the utility (i.e. interoperability goals of this specification) of identifying specific implementations using the canonical IETF RFC or the provided QSA option. an app that "conforms to the spec" will conform to one of the two concrete profiles of the abstract spec - or it will conform to some other functional profile of the abstract specification (modulo an interpretation of conforms that implies that instances of the app conform, or that the app is not reusable software but an instance in its own right). This profile exists in practice even if you dont name it or document it... you just cant make statements about conformance to it (e.g. in DCAT) without some form of "registering" - but that could be as simple as minting a URI. This specification says nothing about the "registration" of other profiles, it only sets out the conditions for it to be said to conform to this specification. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/544#issuecomment-536830982 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2019 02:22:42 UTC