Re: [dxwg] Definitions in Profiles Ontology (#755)

This issue is a general - and definitions for classes have been extensively review against the general concerns which were taken on board.

Agreed that we need to look at the roles in particular and that we should always be open to improving defintions, and we have the luxury of being able to look at object naming too as there is no large installed base and planned implementers are on board to update. (I'm holding off pushing implementations to public resources describing all the OGC profiles waiting on just this)

At this stage we need to close this issue and open new ones for the 3PWD and 4PWD around specific definitions so some consensus can be arrived at clearly for each case.  New issues should be opened when a constructive proposal is advanced for consideration of a single definition or a set of interrelated definitions.  We also need to improve discipline to keep those issues focussed - which means spitting off new issues if we want to have more general discussions about what various real world practices might mean against the model as a whole.

I also suggest attempting to get the guidance document section on conformance written to improve general understanding of the separation of "logical profiles" (aka "non-information resources") and expressions of part of these ("information resources) - in either text that combines multiple specifications and multiple files using different technologies to support formalism and implementation.  If consensus on that wording can be reached then we can probably update the roles vocabulary very quickly to reflect it, and we will have ready-made guidance for this rather complex issue.
 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/755#issuecomment-525067468 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 26 August 2019 23:08:30 UTC