Re: [dxwg] Differentiating Functional & Data Profiling in Conneg (#1022)

@rob-metalinkage great. So you'd agree as well that we can have every occurrence of the notion of "functional profile" spelled out as such? So we could have a way out our issue, if others would be ok with that approach.

@kcoyle my "one" in "may have one for 'functional profile'" was refering to a definition, not an example. Considering that we would add a definition, not changa an agreed definition, I believe it would be ok for Philippe. Unless you really meant to type "definition" and you think we couldn't add  a new definition? Well, anyway I believe that a definition for "functional profiles" is not necessary to the spec. Having the explanations of section 2.1 given in a new sub-section of section 7 would probably be enough, and not confusing because of the well-bounded context of section 7. It's just that I wanted to tell editors that I wouldn't object to them adding a definition for "functional profile" if they strongly want to do it. (and again, I believe this could be done between CR and PR)

@rob-metalinkage thank for the explanation on syllogism. I am still very puzzled hoewever. The act of consensus in #963 was *not* "trying to make it apply to all the other notions of profile in the world that are not covered by its scope". On the contrary, we chose to restrict the scope by focusing on data profiles, not trying to address other kind of profiles. It was rather like creating a firebreak and focus on our key stuff. Quite unlike the "world-dominating" approach you saw in it, apparently.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022#issuecomment-534020936 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 23 September 2019 09:18:54 UTC