Re: Defining "profile"

Dear all,

May I try to recap the points that have been made? Maybe a narrative can help iron out the pending comments.
I hope I'm not going to misrepresent views here.

Rob suggests to re-use ISO's definition.
"A set of one or more base standards, and, where applicable, the identification of chosen classes, conforming subsets, options and parameters of those base standards necessary to accomplish a particular function."

Rob then adds explanations of what the definition allows to represents, which I believe have not been argued against.
He also gives specifications for how 'standard' should be interpreted. But it still uses the word 'standard', which Karen and Ruben express doubts about (both related to the ISO context and outside of that context).
Ruben further comments that the definition also fits cases (notably, media types and programming languages) that are probably not what this group wants to address.

I propose to both extend and relax further the ISO definition:
- extend it by going one step further than Rob's extended notion of standard: i.e. let's just remove it! Standards have become indeed a fuzzy notion. And even if it is a good practice to choose standards as a base for building APs, I think we shouldn't discourage people to use less formally approved vocabularies.
- restrict it by saying that our application profiles are based on (data) vocabularies (as in [1,2]), not any kind of resources.

It would look like:
"A set of one or more base data vocabularies, and, where applicable, the identification of chosen classes, conforming subsets, options and parameters of those base data vocabularies necessary to express data that is appropriate to perform a particular function."

And then I think we should still keep the precisions that Rob gave following the ISO definition (also replacing 'standard' by '(data) vocabularies').
Well, to be precise, Karen suggests that focusing on IRIs is perhaps not fit. I think I agree with her, but maybe we can solve this one point by a single vote during a call, asking the fairly simple Y/N question: "do we think that APs MUST be based on vocabularies that have an IRI?".

Best,

Antoine

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#dataVocabularies
[2] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter

On 01/02/18 05:11, Karen Coyle wrote:
> All,
> 
> We had on our agenda to finalize the definition of profile, based on the
> proposal offered by Rob.[1] There were, however, comments added to that
> section by myself, by Ruben, and Antoine.
> 
> Could we resolve these here in email so that we can agree on the final
> definition next week? In particular, we need to know if Ruben and
> Antoine are satisfied with the definition in there. (Rob made a change
> to address my main comment. Thanks, Rob. I will respond on the page.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> kc
> [1]
> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext#Draft_common_definition_and_explanation_of_.22profile.22
>

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 14:09:05 UTC