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

Re: poll on 'profile'

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 11:47:29 -0700
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <dd6b2f4c-f946-c592-cb5b-34af9a3148ff@kcoyle.net>
Rob, you may not agree with the definition, but we seem to have a
consensus. Unless, of course, some grand number of the 12 people who
voted for that definition now vote in addition for your modified
definition. This is a group activity and the group itself makes the
decision. Let's give people time to weigh in, which they will need to do
individually, as I did.

kc

On 7/13/19 5:26 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> You havent even got a workable notion of what a profile is... and you
> are trying to push through a definition that you have stated your
> interpretation that essentially a profile means nothing... 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?
> 
> Does some DC profile explicitly all non-conformance with the semantics
> of DC?
> 
> What wording in such a profile is used to allow this?
> 
> Can you cite any other profile that does not require comformance to a
> specification it claims to profile?
> 
> Can you suggest any meaning for the concept of profile if its just a
> specification, that its just a synotm for specification?  Could you
> actually model any such meaning?
> 
> At the moment we are just abusing processes to ram through something
> that does not appear to have any concrete value if your interpretation
> is correct. Its not a definition that can be used on conneg, nor the
> identified UCs unless we can explicitly state there is a requirement for
> conformance with a profiled specification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019, 07:39 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> 
>     -1 on counter proposal. We have 12 +1 votes out of 13, which should be
>     sufficient.
> 
>     kc
> 
>     On 7/11/19 5:13 PM, pedro winstley wrote:
>     > Dear Colleagues
>     >
>     > Please can you review the results of the poll and can you let me know
>     > your thoughts on the counter proposal
>     > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/profile-def/results
>     >
>     > I've added this to a github
>     issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/989
>     >
>     > Please can you vote on this using up/down thumbs and if you want
>     to make
>     > any comments just add them to the thread.
>     >
>     > Please can we try to resolve in time for the plenary meeting next week
>     >
>     > Thanks
>     >
>     > Peter
> 
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     skype: kcoylenet
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 14 July 2019 18:47:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:54 UTC