- From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 21:19:29 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@aisaac What does "named" actually add? Can we not take it for granted that a profile would have a name?
> describing data is not prescriptive enough for me. I'd like more to keep "defines/constraints"
I agree, and that is indeed why I changed "describes" (from my earlier proposal) to "defines" - borrowed from Karen.
> some of the enumeration of what's contained in a profile from the earlier definition would really help. I think we didn't add these for no reason, at the time!
When I dug a bit deeper, I found that the wording ("subclasses of datatypes, semantic interpretations, vocabularies, options and parameters... necessary to accomplish a particular function") was mostly borrowed from ISO 10000-1, which AFAICT was a software engineering standard. I [questioned](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jun/0144.html) the notion of "sub-classes of datatypes" because datatypes are not classes, and I suspect that the original ISO standard actually was referring to software functions. I am also unclear what "parameters" refers to; does DCAT have parameters? That leaves vocabularies, semantic interpretations, and even options, which make more sense to me.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-507848654 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 21:19:31 UTC