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 08:07:10 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507568684-1562054829-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@larsgsvensson  wrote:
> Would it help to call them "collections of constraints" or "lists of constraints" in order to get away from the mathematical notion of sets?

The problem is that profiles consist not just of constraints alone, but also of extensions and usage annotations.  (I emphatically resist the notion that extensions and usage annotations can be characterized as "constraints".  If constraints do not "constrain" something, they fail the test of common sense.  If everything is potentially a constraint, then the term is effectively meaningless.)  I cannot think of a single word that captures the range of things one might find in a profile.

The [definition I proposed](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-506650168), or a [variant thereof](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507129887), gets around this problem by saying that a profile is a specification that "constrains, extends, or annotates" one or more data specifications.  This definition defines the profile in terms of how it relates to other specifications, not in terms of the sets, lists, or collections of things it might contain. 

GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507568684 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 08:07:16 UTC

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