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 13:35:21 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507679551-1562074519-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> we dont need a taxonomy because we only need to deal with strict conformance 

The [taxonomy proposed by @smrgeoinfo](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507437561) nicely shows that different types of profile imply different notions of conformance.  In such a context, what does "strict conformance" even mean?

> Other rather obvious points: text in a document describing a profile is not the same as the profile

I think we can agree that [DCAT-AP](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#bib-dcat-ap) is a profile, correct?  The various things _in DCAT-AP_, such as its text, are obviously not the same as the DCAT-AP.

> thats just confusing the representation of the concept with the concept itself

I agree with Antoine's preference for ["specification"](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jun/0051.html) over "document".  While "document" implies a concrete instance of a profile, "specification" implies something more conceptual, which allows different representations to be grouped together (and which is what I think you are driving at with "concept").  This is why I use "specification" in the [definition proposed above](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-506650168).

GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507679551 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 13:35:22 UTC

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