- From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:41:14 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I don't think this is a requirement that we can successfully define. Instead, I see this as something to be resolved in the future with a more complete definition of profiles. To me this is a basic weakness of the model, and I think a different model would be needed to resolve it. As an example, a non-actionable PDF file could be considered the authoritative statement of the profile, and if "constraints" (full or otherwise) are expected to be actionable, then there is no way to say that the PDF is the authoritative statement of the profile. There also may be more than one file that is considered "full constraints" (i.e. both ShEx and SHACL and maybe Schematron), so "full constraints" cannot define the central authority. I say we drop this entirely since I don't think we are prepared to develop a more comprehensive model. The relative meaning of the various resources in PROF will continue to be ambiguous. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/597#issuecomment-459059518 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2019 18:41:16 UTC