- From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:18:56 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@paulwalk > I believe the business of formally managing the inheritance of constraints from one application profile to another is somewhat orthogonal to this requirement, in the sense that it ought to be possible to satisfy the requirement without developing such a mechanism. For this reason, I "do not see the need" for the latter - or at least do not recognise that it is a necessary foundation to solve the requirement. I agree with your point but would add that there is no common notion of "inheritance" shared by designers of profiles. Put another way, there is no common notion of "inheritance" that is shared by the technologies used to express profiles. Each technology has _its own way_ of expressing dependencies among documents (sourcing, importing, citing, declaring namespaces...). Trying to reflect those dependencies in metadata seems redundant and, because metadata is often an afterthought, brittle. > This issue, then, is about simplifying the process of understanding how this validation can be done by establishing some convention(s) for documenting and implementing this. I agree and, to be clear, "establishing some conventions" for documentation should not imply that there is some universal way to model validation. I really like [the suggestion from @smrgeoinfo](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/698#issuecomment-524447605) that one link to a validation resource when possible but that when more complex validation procedures are involved, just point to a document describing the validation procedure. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/698#issuecomment-526529302 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 30 August 2019 09:18:58 UTC