Re: Agenda February 6 -- profile definition

Hi Rob,
Just reacting on the point 2. I think 'specification'  is better, but it needs to be clarified (maybe it's your point 1 but I'm not sure, sorry). 'specification' alone will include all kind of things that we agree are not in scope - like media types or programming languages. What I've tried to correct by talking about 'data vocabularies' and for which Makx offers "base vocabulary specifications" - which I'd be fine with.

Antoine

On 03/02/18 12:07, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> 
> At this stage I cannot see where the definition does not cover any identified cases - but if we can come up with a specific example within scope we show is not adequately expressed the we will need to revise.
> 
>   - there seem to be two other substantive concerns  -
> 1) how to explicitly state this is different from MIME type negotiation - which is true, but is in fact implicit in the definition. Suggest a suitably simple wording for the clarifying "this is not X" statement and I for one would support adding it.
> 2) what a profile is a profile of - - agree "standard" is too specific - "specification" may be a better term?
> 
> there is also a worry that the definition is too broad - so its simultaneuously too narrow and too broad, which is interesting.  I certainly think it shouldbe broad enough to cover existing profiles (written as guidance doicuments) as well as possible constrain languages, or mixtures of the above. So maybe it comes down to what a "specification" scope is - but IMHO is simply any specification within scope of DCAT concerns - any aspect of whatever a Dataset is - which is a separate discussion about scope. Lets leave the scope issue to that discussion, but maybe make this explicit.
> 
> At any rate, we need explicit examples to reject, narrow or broaden the defintion, grounded in our Use Cases and Requirements, and if necessary UCR change proposals if there is something missing.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 at 14:54 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> 
>     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? We'll need
>     a text to get to approval.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     kc
> 
>     On 2/2/18 8:16 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>      >>> 2) define "profile"
>      >
>      > Since I won't be at the meeting, I'd like to point to my concerns with the current profile definition draft.
>      > They are listed here: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext#Comments.2Fobjections
>      >
>      > My main problem is that the current draft for a common definition
>      > does not reflect the efforts we did earlier, so it's not really “common” at the moment.
>      > Specifically, there is no distinction between a media type and a profile.
>      >
>      > So I object to the draft as currently proposed,
>      > and am open to further discussions.
>      >
>      > Best,
>      >
>      > Ruben
>      >
> 
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
>

Received on Sunday, 4 February 2018 21:18:00 UTC