- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 20:52:36 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Just RDF doesnt buy much value - although its better than eanything that doesnt even provide namespaces for data elements - such as XML without schema, or JSON. I think we should drop the word "graph" - but also we all need to be aware that XML or JSON or any other nested structure is also a graph - it merely implies that such metadata is unlikely to be a trivial flat record or a scalar value (a sinbgle literal). Thats reality - now we work out how to communicate it better... We should make a statement about the actual requirement here - which is not machine-parsing - its machine-interpretation - i.e. the ability to recognise a canonical description of the key elements of a profile (its conceptual model), The reason for SHOULD is mainly because we dont have enough experience and evidence to dictate a canonical form (which wouold give maximum interoperability) , but we do have a candidate we can recommend now at least. So I think the wording for the _requirement_ could be more along the lines of Requirement: profiles offered by a service must be discoverable through metadata that describes what is offered and how to invoke the offered profiles. This metadata SHOULD be described using a canonical expression such as the Profiles Ontology. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/288#issuecomment-442988904 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:52:37 UTC