- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 06:19:34 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I see some pros and cons for this proposal: pros: - there has been a lot of discussion about what defines a profile vs what properties a profile has.. and the is/has dichotomy probably helps here - now is the best time to make any such changes - people are looking and after it goes into the wild its harder to change - there is no installed base we need to keep happy yet - there is no change to the actual model cons: - naming conventions are probably not easily identified as best practice or not - there is a lot of work to update ontology, diagrams, documents and examples - implementers need to be happy with this Given the work involved has been done (the biggest issue) and a PR generated, and Nick is an implementer, and I will also implement in a different context and have been hanging off waiting for expected name changes from FPWD feedback.... I'm inclined to support the proposal as a marginal improvement in readability - that won't delay us getting to a FPWD. So I guess it comes down now to the group consensus on property naming styles.. It doesnt affect the readiness of the FPWG - we simply choose version 1 or 2.. We have two choices: 1) make this an issue for the plenary - i.e. vote to accept it immediately 2) accept there is no change to the model and this is editorial in nature and leave it to the Profile guidance sub-group to make the final decision and release the relevant version to W3C -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/534#issuecomment-436143555 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2018 06:19:35 UTC