Re: Outcome of profile definition discussion

I dont think we should feel shy about trying to improve this - at least we
have focussed in on a basic understanding and working definition.  I have
updated the wiki page for now..

https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext





On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 at 05:25 <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

> Sorry to be a pain here, but I'm concerned about the use of "constraints"
> in the definition, as it could lead to misunderstandings.
>
> Formally speaking, "constraints" imply a closed-world assumption, which
> would mean that RDF vocabularies and OWL ontologies are not "profiles".
>
> I think it would be worth clarifying that we use "constraints" in a
> general sense, including also the RDFS/OWL notion of "restriction".
>
> I'm afraid I have no smart proposal at the moment, but maybe, for a
> working definition, "A named set of constraints or restrictions" could be a
> starting point.
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 6:37 PM
> >To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> >Subject: Re: Outcome of profile definition discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >On 07/02/18 17:13, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >>>> - "including the identification [...]" gives a focus to the definiton
> but doesn't
> >formally excludes the things we don't want into (MIME types, programming
> >languages...). Someone may still argue that it's possible to use it to
> include
> >these things.
> >>
> >> Could be done by changing
> >>
> >>> A named set of constraints
> >>
> >> into
> >>
> >>> A named set of constraints for the representation of documents
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It would be fine for me!
> >
> >Antoine
>
>