Re: [dxwg] Create a use case and requirement for "central" authoritative validation rules (#597)

I can't believe I missed the most obvious analogy/explanation: W3C recommendations. With normative documents (normative ~= authoritative), and non-normative examples, code, and translations. That's probably the easiest example to understand. With W3C standards it is always the case that for each standard there is one normative/authoritative document although there can be many other related files. Also analogous is that normative documents are rarely (if ever?) written as code, and that coded forms of the recommendation (such as the various forms of SHACL in ttl, JSON-LD, etc.; or the ttl that accompanies the DCAT-AP) are non-normative. Also, all W3C documents are written in English and all translations are non-normative. 

So the concept of "authoritative validation rules" is really the same as the concept of W3C recommendations - that there is one and only one normative/authoritative version. In many cases it will be a language document. All other related versions are non-normative. I think that should make this idea clear, does it not?

This doesn't mean that PROF has to do this. In fact, as I say above, I think this is a fairly big issue and might well take PROF in a direction that it should not go - at least, not at this time. I think PROF represents a different line of thinking than what I've described (and we haven't begun to think through the implications!), and if it meets the needs of folks then there's no reason to force it in a different direction.

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

Received on Friday, 1 February 2019 00:07:29 UTC