Re: [dxwg] profileDesc and the Guidance document

Among the options proposed (thanks @rob-metalinkage !) I'm still in favour of 4. It's easier to handle for us right now. And we can still decide to separate later, depending on progress and adoption of ProfileDesc.

Re. @kcoyle 's point on 4 about ProfileDesc not being 'technology neutral', this is indeed something to consider. But in fact I'm going to seize the opportunity to make a point I wanted to make: I think we should treat ProfileDesc as a Data Model, perhaps one back by RDF model, but not a 'pure' RDF ontology file. That wouldn't prevent us to create an RDF ontology, and have this be the main representation. But we should be completely ready to have Description of Profiles in XML, non-LD JSON, etc.

GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 20:17:18 UTC