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

Original descirption for this issue was:

From @aisaac in PR #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).

I'm removing that to trim the body size down in the 3PWD and phrasing the body as a question for 3PWD review.

GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2019 10:45:57 UTC