Re: Profile requirements added for f2f3

Hi Karen,

Impressive work.
Would it help if we start discussing these requirements before discussing the definition again?

We've got various definition pieces floating around. There might be discrepancies, but they're probably not that big - we had a resolution on Rob's definition after all. And if there are discrepencies, maybe it would be easier to iron them out in the light of the requirements, rather than in theory?
Who knows, maybe there some parts of a general profile definition that can be left vague, because there's just no requirement to make them more precise - and no case where an extensive theoretical clarification on these parts would bring a concrete benefit.

Cheers,

Antoine

On 24/04/18 19:16, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I added to github what I think is the full set of profile requirements
> that need to be discussed at f2f3. You can find them with the label
> "f2f3". PLEASE COMMENT IF YOU HAVE IDEAS ABOUT THESE.
> 
> Background:
> 
> At f2f2 we stumbled as we tried to go over the requirements for profile
> definitions and we deferred making decisions on the profiles listed
> under section 6.8.1 of the UCR.[1] The reason for deferring these was
> that we were unclear on the scope of the deliverable listed as "Guidance
> for Application Profiles". [2] The 6.8.1 requirements are listed in the
> spreadsheet under 6.1. [3]
> 
> The upcoming f2f is to help us clarify what we mean by "profile" and
> what we will take on as "profile guidance" as a deliverable. (The
> charter's definition is quite brief [4].) The suggestion of the
> co-chairs is that we use the first part of the meeting to achieve
> consensus on our thoughts about profiles and what that means in terms of
> the deliverable, after which we can review the profile requirements that
> have not yet been approved and make decisions on those.
> 
> Looking at these requirements today you can see that there were a
> variety of definitions in play, and they are not necessarily compatible.
> This discussion may result in a modification of use cases as well as our
> list of requirements. Ideally we will come out of the meeting with an
> understanding of the Guidance deliverable that we can complete within
> the working group's time frame, and at least the beginnings of a
> subgroup of editors who can work on the deliverable.
> 
> The co-chairs
> 
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#RPFDF
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-dxwg-minutes#meeting, look at the
> section after "RESOLVED: accept 6.37..."
> [3]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16JmtNCz_aCWtTCSntriDWLvyPY2x-Y9dZFhAHFl55r0/edit#gid=0
> [4] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter#deliverables
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2018 10:04:35 UTC