- From: <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:53:11 +0100
- To: "'Ruben Verborgh'" <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>, <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
I agree with Ruben here. The definition as it is now being proposed implies that a namespace document, i.e. a document that specifies a 'base standard' or (better) a 'base vocabulary specification', like http://purl.org/dc/terms/ or all documents under https://www.w3.org/ns/, are 'profiles'. I would rather see that we stay closer to Ruben's proposal that defines profiles as being fundamentally about "structural constraints and/or semantic interpretations" related to base vocabulary specifications that, in my opinion, should be declared separately. In an earlier discussion with Antoine, I argued that namespace documents, i.e. definitions of semantics, and profiles in the sense of Ruben's definition have different maintenance requirements and that it therefore would make sense to keep them separate. I personally do not see the benefit of lumping these two different types of things together. In practice, it has always been helpful to treat them differently. Makx. -----Original Message----- From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be] Sent: 04 February 2018 19:01 To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Agenda February 6 > Ruben, could you take either Rob's or Antoine's suggested wordings and > add what you think would make one of these acceptable to you? It's unfortunately not that straightforward to just add things to the draft definition. The definition as a whole takes a different direction than what was discussed previously. I think we should start with a list of things we need, and then write that definition, instead of retrofitting another definition. For instance, something we all seem to agree on is that a profile is identified by an IRI, that it describes a set of constraints that can apply to a document. None of these can be found in the current draft. Best, Ruben
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2018 19:53:39 UTC