- From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 04:05:15 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I don't think it makes sense to have a formal definition of non-conformance much less types of non-conformance. And note that the XSD, Schematron, OWL, etc are generally relations between instance data and a profile, not between profiles. So let's stick with relationships between profiles. To me the issue isn't how we define non-conformance but how we can talk about profiles without conformance. If "profileOf" requires conformance then we cannot say that profileA is a profileOf standardX unless the profileA defines conformance formalisms. Meanwhile, we've floated the idea that a profile can be any combination of functions, not all of which support conformance. So the issue that I see is not whether conformance between profiles is an option, it's whether we require conformance for something to be a profile. And if something like the DCAT-AP PDF can be considered a profile, can it be used as the subject of profileOf? If it is, then what happens to the conformance requirement? These are pretty factual questions. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/486#issuecomment-435264957 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 2 November 2018 04:05:17 UTC