- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 00:25:27 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
1. ok - could label this DCAT and CONNEG - but it wont actually affect them - this is making sure in DCAT context usage of conformsTo is useful, and addresses the issue for CONNEG that a profile is any specification that can be conformed to (and named so it can be asked for!) We could break those senses with a bad definition, but we dont need to change those deliverables if we get it right 2. what is an "IT function" and who is making the statement "doesnt fit well" with what evidence, and what would it matter if our definition works for the cases we are considering? 3. Does this refer to all types of existing specifications and profiles? - define "all" ? Am happy to accept the notion it relates to information in out context, but i dont see any reason it couldnt relate to behaviour - such as Service Level Agreements, or licences - or any other thing in which conformance could notionally be tested. I expect there will be cases where "a specification does not have separate sections that can be addressed precisely" - and we will probably need to agree a convention - such a role connecting the document to a notional sub-section without an explicit address within the document. 4. my bad - updated original text - should be "logical grouping of requirements" -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/978#issuecomment-509858876 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2019 00:25:29 UTC