Re: feedback on the drafts relating to profiles

Nicholas,
Many thanks for following up on these comments!

I have added a couple of responses on the github issues - I hope these are at least somewhat helpful to you.

Best wishes,

Paul

-——————————————
Paul Walk
http://www.paulwalk.net

Founder and Director, Antleaf Ltd 
http://www.antleaf.com

Antleaf provides Management Services to DCMI 
http://www.dublincore.org
-——————————————

> On 29 Aug 2019, at 16:05, Nicholas Car <nicholas.car@surroundaustralia.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>