- From: Stephen Richard via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 20:49:55 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Seems to me a basic problem here is defining 'profileOf' without a clear definition of 'profile', see discussion at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/435#issuecomment-434829948. I think what is useful is to be able to say that a profile X (I'm going to call it specification from here on) conformsTo (instead of profileOf) specification Y means that there is some conformance test for specification Y, and specification X (the profile) will also pass that test. In the XML world, this is done by saying that documents conforming to the profile will validate according to the xml schema (and or schematron rules) for the base specification. In the OGC/ISOTC211 modular specification thinking, one could assert that my new specification (a profile...) meets conformance classes 1, 5, and 8 from specification A, and conformance classes 2, 3 and 4 from specification B. That would be actionable information. The problem faced in the rdf vocabulary and JSON world is that there aren't widely validation tests for conformance to a spec; SHACL and SHEX, JSON schema are coming along, but is the tooling is ready for prime time? -- GitHub Notification of comment by smrgeoinfo Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/507#issuecomment-434842703 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2018 20:49:56 UTC