Re: [dxwg] property profileOfTransitive (#486)

@rob-metalinkage I wish to make clear that nothing that I have posted should be taken as support for non-standalone profiles. Obviously, we need to define precisely what we mean by that, but my point about "semantic inheritance" is for the human mind to observe and is not subject to any programming requirements, and therefore is irrelevant to a vocabulary for defining profiles. Or to say this another way, I would not accept a definition of profile that requires the creation of code that makes use of a "profileOf" statement and does any "include" or validation between profiles. If folks want to do that, it's obviously not dis-allowed, but I wouldn't make it part of a vocabulary today without widespread proof of concept, which I do not see.

We did indeed conclude that all of the profiles that we have seen to date are "standalone". See #228. And there was support for keeping it that way. I don't know where you see agreement for the opposite. To confirm the "standalone" proposal we could call for a concluding vote in that thread or with a poll. However we decide it, an explication of the idea could take place in the guidance document. I think that making a decision regarding PROF could be separate since there is no rule that PROF has to concur with the profiles guidance. A proposal could be made on wording for PROF and a definition of what is meant by "profileOf" (which we have attempted in #507 and the decision was deferred) which the WG could vote on.

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

Received on Saturday, 24 August 2019 16:05:27 UTC