Re: [dxwg] Differentiating Functional & Data Profiling in Conneg (#1022)

@rob-metalinkage where do you see that we "need" the more general definition? It's not in our charter, it's not in our use cases and requirements: we are not chartered to develop a framework that covers both data conformance and conformance of systems behaviours / functions. Of course we can do this, and I see some elegance if we manage to do it. And probably I can be open enough to even accept how the section is written. But I'm sure that a majority of the WG is going to not buy that and require new definitions to be approved etc... For example they could ask what's the connection between your (generalized) conformance "profiles" and conformance "levels" such as defined e.g. here . Not impossible, but it's going to require time. 

If we don't need a unified theory, then going first for the safe way, not cross the streams, and just leave open the door to the unified theory in a note and to later times, seems more efficient for getting a new version of Conneg published fast.

In fact the time needed to work out the unified theory already shows in the editorial work needed, just within the Conneg document. At the time I'm writing this, the [Conneg draft has an intro]( that is completely decent. But it's written in terms of conformance of "information" and "content" wrt to "information models". All this is at odds with that comes later in [section 2.1](, which is about compliance of systems functions. So you'd have to rewrite the intro, while this was not needed. And put the definitions for the unified theory first! In fact Section 2.1 itself [makes a reference for "profile"]( which points to the "data specification" definition.
I understand you're maybe working on fixing all this as we speak, but I don't see the need for such a pain at this stage.

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

Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2019 13:46:37 UTC