- From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:04:03 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Here's my understanding: >A profile is based on at least one pre-existing specification of vocabulary terms, with or without additional constraints. A profile may be based on any number of such pre-existing specifications. These are referred to in this document as 'base specifications.' >For example, a profile MAY be based on several data models and vocabularies at the same time. In profiles using XML schema or RDF technology, using multiple base specifications generally means using elements from multiple namespaces. If we use "specfication" without saying more about the kind of specification, then one could conclude that a profile could be based on the banking rules of the IMO, which have no relation to metadata. This is my problem with using the term specification, because it is broader than what we are actually working with. I know that people hate the term "metadata" and there is push-back about refering to vocabularies, but if we do not have vocabulary terms (or whatever you wish to call them) then there are no profiles, no schemas and no namespaces. Our use of "specification" has to conceptually include those elements, and we should not refer to specifications that do not have them. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/268#issuecomment-464358532 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2019 16:04:09 UTC