W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: the term "fragments"

From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:34:00 -0400
Message-ID: <47F3EDB8.2060300@cme.nist.gov>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

I find "profile" to be a natural fit for the sorts of things that
this group has been calling "fragments".  It is a much more well
recognized term for this kind of thing, and I would like to see us
use it.


Sandro Hawke wrote:
> In last weeks telecon we talked a little about the use of the term
> "Fragments" and the chair said we should continue off-line.
> I propose we stick with "profile", as per the QA Working Group [1]:
>      A profile is a subset of the technology that supports a particular
>      functional objective....
>      Profiles can be based on hardware considerations associated with
>      target product classes -- for example, SVG Tiny is aimed at mobile
>      phones -- or they may be driven by other functional requirements of
>      their target constituencies -- for example, a graphical profile
>      tailored for technical illustrations in aircraft maintenance
>      manuals.
> and Wikipedia [2]:
>      an agreed-upon subset and interpretation of a specification.
> Not exciting, and jargon (like "fragments" is), but hey...
>         -- Sandro
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/#subdivision-profile
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 20:36:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 April 2008 20:36:32 GMT