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

Re: [dxwg] Two things that our "profiles" are not (#976)

From: Ruben Verborgh via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:28:29 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-516470216-1564500508-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> @RubenVerborgh @rob-metalinkage I am quite puzzled by your points: the position I'm reflecting here wrt JSON-LD results from plenary discussions with the JSON-LD WG: [w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes#x06](https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes#x06)
> And as stated, it seems that they've even acted on this since then, as they've embarked on renaming as "forms" what they used to refer to "profiles":
> [w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#forms-of-json-ld](https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#forms-of-json-ld)

There's no contradiction; just different terminology. IETF profiles are constraints on structure and/or semantics; a JSON-LD form is a constraint on structure (over the JSON-LD semantic interpretation).

> Or maybe we should clarify that the kind of profiles here are in terms of (RDF) semantics?

RDF profiles are a kind of profile indeed.

> To me a specification that would dictate one or the other form of encoding wouldn't count as a profile

That's fine; the IETF definition is as open as possible.

GitHub Notification of comment by RubenVerborgh
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/976#issuecomment-516470216 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2019 15:28:34 UTC

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