W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > February 2019

Re: [dxwg] Clarify PROF's relation to constraint languages (#721)

From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 20:49:42 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-461942166-1549658981-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I wonder whether this issue relates somehow to the more general question of which languages can be used for "profiles", and for doing what. This is actually more in scope with the profile guidance document, and I take this opportunity to ask again if it may be worth including an appendix listing the existing languages and their capabilities - something along the lines of the draft in

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zty4jTzhG0_1xoJlDOMq1XeHelIwVP2-STw6_-_ZxR4/edit#gid=0

We did something similar in the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices, by listing the existing "formats" for geospatial data, and showing which of them comply with which best practice(s), to help people make a choice based on their requirements - see

https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#applicability-formatVbp

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/721#issuecomment-461942166 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 8 February 2019 20:49:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:12 UTC