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

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 06:06:21AM +1000, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> The argument seems to be something I dont understand at
> all, and have never seen an example of AFAICT: "most specifications are
> mutable" .

The Initial Example in [1], as shown in Figure 2, shows Profile X as a
profile of "Dublin Core Terms" (*), identified in the example as [2].

The specification at [2] has evolved, and continues to evolve, over a
long timeframe.  This is not unusual - think FOAF,, even SKOS
and RDF.  For RDF namespaces, best practice turned out to be _not_ to
include versioning information in URIs. DCMI stopped doing it after (the next one to be coined was FOAF still uses,
but changing the URI at this point would be quite disruptive with no 
obvious gains (other than aesthetic).



(*) I have commented that the more correct name is "DCMI Metadata 
    Terms" but that is irrelevant to my point here.

Tom Baker <>

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2019 08:10:15 UTC