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: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 05:31:36 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-511174735-1563082295-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
We dont have any UC for describing "non-profiles" and there is no propose metric for optimality - so profiles either meet the requirements of a profile or they dont. Introducing undefined concepts without evidence they are needs or useful doesnt move us forward.

There are two issues we need to satisfy ourselves on:
1) Does the notion of profile specify anything (and just saying its a type of specification says nothing), and if so what?
2) Does the definition unambiguously convey that notion.

At the moment the problem is not with the definition (other that it needs two definitions to convey any useful information about the behaviour of a profile).  The problem is that we have and argument about the definition based on an interpretation that needs a lot more evidence to be acceptable:

i.e. there is no requirement for conformance to a profile to mean conformance to a profiled specification. 

Can you actually cite evidence this interpretation makes any sense? what are the distinct behavioural characteristics that make "profile" not just a synonym for "specification". 

Does some identifiable DC profile explicitly allow non-conformance with the semantics of DC? What wording does it use to specify this?

Can you cite any other profile that does not require conformance to a specification it claims to profile?

Can you suggest any meaning for the concept of profile if its just a specification,  with no specific behavioural characteristics identified ?  Could you actually model any such meaning?

I think perhaps there is a concept of "guidance notes" that have no conformance requirements that might match such a loose definition - and may have some value - but its not a sense that is relevant to Conneg-by-AP in particular or  to the DCAT case (except as annotating some instance of dct:Standard) - so why would we even need to define it if each deliverable document would then need to define a more specific concept anyway?

GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/989#issuecomment-511174735 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 14 July 2019 05:31:38 UTC

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