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

Re: [dxwg] refining the definition of profile in response to the poll (#989)

From: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:26:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CABUZhH=OJaDWhxp_gqtM+AatFf7pxf2De1Q7NLAdPX_3cdSo1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the feedback @tombaker.  I need though to say that we *have* to
find a solution to this impasse that moves  us forward.  I really don't
want this to go beyond the next plenary meeting without sufficient
invention or compromise being done to allow us to move forward.  So, please
can everyone put their thinking hats on and let's get this issue resolved


On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 09:10, tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org> wrote:

> @pwin I voted this down because it adds to the original proposal a note of
> prescriptive intent.  The first half of the definition says what profiles
> _are_, and the second half (starting with "whereby") is actually a
> good-practice guideline, though I agree that a profile indeed _should_
> remain "compliant" with a base specification.
> Also, it is unclear to me what the longer definition is saying.  How can
> that _context_ of a profile be compliant? What I think you are trying to
> say could perhaps be formulated as a usage note - _outside of_ the
> definition per se.  Something like:
>     A profile should be compliant with the data specifications
>     to which it refers.
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker
> Please view or discuss this issue at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/989#issuecomment-510793753 using your
> GitHub account
Received on Friday, 12 July 2019 08:27:15 UTC

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