RE: Do we really need a notion of profile "conformance"?

'Specification' is used by OGC as a generalized abstraction of technical standards/profiles/whatever. 

OGC has a policy directive 'The Specification Model - A Standard for Modular specifications' which lays out an overall structure for building specifications based on reusable modules from existing specs. The key goal in this case was to formalize the way that groups of requirements are chunked up so that conformance certificates are at a useful level of granularity. But the overall principle is that each new specification has dependencies, and that these should be explicit and managed. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Baker [] 
Sent: Wednesday, 19 June, 2019 07:09
To: Antoine Isaac <>
Subject: Re: Do we really need a notion of profile "conformance"?

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:35:18PM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> In particular I like very much the notion of 'specification' rather 
> than 'document'.  'document' points to a rather concrete instance of a 
> profile, while 'specification' is more conceptual, and allows to to 
> group things together. For example, 'specification' allows me to 
> consider the Europeana Data Model as a specification that can be 
> detailed in an XML Schema, an RDFS/OWL document, or a SHACL 
> represention. If we jump straight to the definition, then all the 
> 'instanciations' of the Europeana Data Model would live in splendid 
> isolation. There are many more downsides to focusing on 'documents'
> but this one seems a major showstopper to me.

+1 to "specification" with this nice explanation of the distinction.


Tom Baker <>

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2019 00:17:11 UTC