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

[dxwg] Differentiating Functional & Data Profiling in Conneg (#1022)

From: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:13:13 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-474888428-1564535592-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
nicholascar has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/dxwg:

== Differentiating Functional & Data Profiling in Conneg ==
From @aisaac in PR https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1018:

> what I'd like to see is more wording like the one in the Note, which says this is about "functional" profiles and not "data" profiles. If this is about profiles for content negotiation, couldn't we directly call them "negotiation profiles"? Or "realization profiles", as these things are called "realizations"

> (and yes, I'd be even ready to suggest that RRD and the abstract model are also a kind of "realization" to make this happen, and also to have you use the infamous recursive trick again ;-) )

> Similarly we could also try to avoid term collisions by using "compliance" instead of "conformance", with the understanding that "compliance" would be used to express how a system (not data) adheres to some specification. Or perhaps even better, as this part is about systems implementing realizations of the models, the term 'implementation' could be used. I know this is in a section about conformance (to CONNEG) but I don't see much harm in claiming that conformance to CONNEG can be obtained by having systems "implement" (or comply with) one of the realizations of the abstract model (or the abstract model itself).

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2019 01:13:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:55 UTC