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: Karen Coyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 14:34:39 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-511843344-1563287677-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
RE: specifications v documents. Specification, as we've defined it, isn't a particular format/mime type. The issue I brought up is that we include those specifications that are not in a program-actionable form, such as Word documents or PDFs. 

As for conformance, in Rob's question: "Can you cite any other profile that does not require conformance to a specification it claims to profile?" I agree that conformance is community-specific, and we should state it as such in any documentation. That means that "require conformance" is also community-specific so we can't make any definitive statements about whether a community requires conformance to a specification. It may require conformance to only part, it may not (yet) have conformance defined. However "We only need to define the relationship between specifications and data" seems to be something we cannot define because that relationship is what is community-specific; that relationship is the definition of "conformance".

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/989#issuecomment-511843344 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2019 14:34:40 UTC

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