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 21:19:29 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507848654-1562102368-sysbot+gh@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

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