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

Re: [dxwg] Revisiting the definition of "profile" (#963)

From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 07:06:00 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507548801-1562051158-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
>> Is it helpful to call this a "set of constraints"?
> Could they be enumerated in a checklist? If so, then 'set' is fine AFAICT, in fact it is a useful idea.

I think you are asking whether "constraints" defined in profiles could be enumerated.  If we had a coherent definition of "constraints" (which we do not), I'm sure this could quite trivially be done.  But it is terribly reductive to characterize profiles as "sets of constraints" as if they were data structures like RDF graphs ("sets of triples") or Python dictionaries ("sets of key:value pairs").  If the PDF of a profile cannot be algorithmically processed as a set, and an ordinary user cannot immediately recognize its contents as constituting a set, it should not be called a set.

> I understood that the goal of the profile-vocabulary was to help in expressing a profile more formally.

But is that really the goal of the profile vocabulary?   Technologies such as ShEx, SHACL, Schematron, etc, really do help express a profile more formally.  The draft [Profiles Vocabulary](https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof/#conceptualmodel), as I see it, merely aims at describing relationships within a cluster of documents.

GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507548801 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 07:06:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:18 UTC