- From: Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:05:46 +0000
- To: "paul@paulwalk.net" <paul@paulwalk.net>
- CC: public-dxwg-comments <public-dxwg-comments@w3.org>
Dear Paul, Quite some time ago you provided on the Profiles Vocabulary & Profiles Guidance document drafts: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019Jan/0006.html Parts of those comments have been discussed within GitHub Issues: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/792 - Use of "standard". https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/731 - Profiles Ontology Figure 3 (see comment https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/731#issuecomment-470116410) https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/698 - Indicate a conventional way to automatically validate data instances of application profiles For 792, * Changes have been made to the Vocabulary * Changes are noted in the Issue For 731: * The diagrams are OWL diagrams (informal expressions of OWL ontology entities) since the vocabulary is an OWL ontology. This has been noted in the caption for Figure 1 (see https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/#conceptualmodel) and all Figures improved. For 698: * This Issue has had discussion, including your comments, and now a proposal, from rob-metalinkage to close it who proposes that the remaining concern is out of scope. * Can you perhaps provide any further reflections on this so that we may either refine the Issue, make a new one or just close? Thanks, Nick
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2019 15:06:12 UTC