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

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

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:24:09 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507653582-1562070248-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
This is all getting rather convoluted - at this stage we dont need a taxonomy because we only need to deal with strict conformance - uses, or guided by  or any other possible relationship may be described by some other process - its an open world - its not relevant to conneg.

Other rather obvious points:  text in a document describing a profile is not the same as the profile - all specifications have background and informative information,  and a set/list/collection/handbag of normative requirements - all that other stuff is metadata and annotations about the "thing".  nothing in the definition does, or should, stop you from describing any aspect any way you like - thats just confusing the representation of the concept with the concept itself.  

Usage annotations are just open-world view of the original specification - extensions however actually do constrain things if there is a requirement to use the extension to conform to the specification.  

We simply dont have Use Cases around annotation, re-use, or publishing optional extension vocabularies - valid though they may be.  It is true that existing profiles may also perform these roles w.r.t. to specifciations - but nothing stops them having multiple roles. 

Feel free to suggest better wording, but dont introduce different requirements without following the agreed UCR discipline




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507653582 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:24:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:54 UTC