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

Re: [dxwg] Two things that our "profiles" are not (#976)

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 23:39:15 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-508590708-1562283554-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I have added a proposed new Use Case, which I hope helps to untangle what seem to be quite different but legitimate views of documents and specifications. https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/978

in short, we must accept that a document may contain multiple specifications - and we may treat the set of mandatory requirements as one specification and a set of suggestions as another, and have different notions of what "conformance" means for each - the first step is to recognise these are N distinct "named sets of requirements"  (I think I am persuaded to avoid "constraints" as too technical because it looks like we need to extend scope of profiles to a broader concept of specifications, which matches conneg functional requirements.)

I dont think this adds any new requirements to DCAT or Conneg, but does suggest some easy ways to describe the differences in a canonical way in the profiles vocabulary.

GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/976#issuecomment-508590708 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2019 23:39:16 UTC

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