- From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:37:22 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@aisaac wrote: > Even more importantly, it could be that roles for Resource Descriptors and their artefacts are actually 'essential' (in the sense of formal ontology). E.g., an XML schema could be said to always be usable for validation. So it's not a 'role' anymore (again, in the sense of formal ontology) anymore, it becomes closer to a type. I remember that this was one of the points raised during the F2F. However, I'm not sure how safe would this solution be. E.g., I think who has been playing with XML for some time, stumbled upon XML Schema's that couldn't be used for validation, and so this task was carried out via another method (e.g., Relax NG). Supposing to apply this use case to a profile, we have a resource descriptor (XML Schema) used for defining the profile, and another one (Relax NG) for validating it. That's an additional reason why I think a "role" cannot be intrinsic to a resource descriptor , but it always needs to be related to the profile. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/638#issuecomment-452698911 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2019 13:37:23 UTC