- From: Ruben Verborgh via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:34:38 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I was alerted to this discussion by [@tombaker's mail](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jul/0205.html) kindly forwarded by Peter. I was surprised to see that the profile definition is indeed still a concern. I had already voiced a strong opinion against the definition of "named set of constraints on one or more identified base specifications", which non-related concepts like a programming language also satisfy (see https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext#Comments.2Fobjections). I think the above definitions by @tombaker are indeed closer to what we want. But I have some concerns there regarding it being a recursive definition. I don't think the essence of a profile (there being defined as a data specification) is that it related to another specification. FYI, this is what the [IETF draft](https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Profile-Negotiation/I-D-Profile-Negotiation.html) currently says: > In the context of this proposal, a profile is a description of the structural and/or semantic constraints of a group of documents. The interesting difference being that the above definition also allows "extends" rather than "constrains"; however, I don't see this as a contradiction, as the IETF definition talks about constraints with regard to documents, not other profiles. -- GitHub Notification of comment by RubenVerborgh Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-510007759 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2019 10:34:39 UTC