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

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

From: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:20:26 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-516654673-1564536024-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Hi @aisaac, I totally agree with point 1 (more wording in the Note) so will work on that.

For point 2 (suggest that RRD and the abstract model are also a kind of "realization"): I'll chat to @rob-metalinkage & @larsgsvensson about this but see my proposal next.

For 3 (avoid term collisions by using "compliance" instead of "conformance") and part of 2 above: I suggest the opposite. We should consider reducing the number of terms here from Realizations to Profiles and deliberately use "conformance" (of system behaviour to a functional specification) in line with "conformance" (of data to a data specification). So the Abstract Spec & the 4/5 Realizations (depending on whether you count QSA twice) all just become Profiles of the Spec which systems (behaviour) can conform to. This is simplified and makes intuitive sense to me. As soon as we termed "things" (Realizations & Abstract Model) that someone might like to show conformance to Profiles, description of what's going on becomes easier. See the QSA part of the doc I'm now rewriting using Profile terminology in branch conneg-ACTION-343 (https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/conneg-ACTION-343/conneg-by-ap/index.html#qsa-key-naming).

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022#issuecomment-516654673 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2019 01:20:27 UTC

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