Re: [dxwg] Should a server list all profiles it supports, even those in a hierarchy (#932)

it looks like we are having to fill a hole in the general concept of specifications - so we have a choice
1) expand the scope of profiles ontology to capture core issues around specification conformance (i.e. a conformanceTarget property on dct:Standard or some subclass
2) ignore it and take it as read that these are well understood concepts
3) continue to add more and more explanation of every word used in definitions into text (i'm not sure this ever ends - its a recursive process)

consistency in the terminology and some formalism (option 1) may be the most useful approach -it does something useful at the implementation level, and we can then tweak definitions to highlight the concept.

GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2019 22:22:18 UTC