- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 20:02:56 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
The reason the group also ended up defining only data profiles was that the majority didn't believe in a more general notion of profile. It is quite telling that the issue #963 opened to revise the definition of "profile" ended up only with a definition of "data profile". If there was agreement on focusing on a general "profile", then the end result of the discussion would have been a definition of "profile". About points re. "syllogistic", "Realisation is ugly and crosses into other uses of the word realisation", I really don't understand the logic. The definition of data profile is not a syllogism. Especially, if there's a syllogism in there, then the offered definition of the more general notion of profile should have one, considering how they are close to each other. And using "profile" for realization does cross into other uses of the word "profile", which are actually right in the document where the use of "profile" for "realization" is proposed, which is way worse. This being said, and trying to follow up on the proposal to accommodate the definition of "data profile", there might be a way keep functional profiles while minimizing the confusion: 1. keep our notion of data profile and clearly presenting that as the profiles that are the object of content negotiation 2. make sure that every reference to functional profiles is spelled out "functional profile" and not "profile", leaving the shorter form free to be used for the references to "data profile". 3. no try to present a unifying framework, which again is not needed for the document to work. Or if it's done it should be only in the lightest manner, in the "definitions" section, by having next to a definition of "data profile" the generalized definition for "profile" (the one that is currently in the editor's draft, which is close enough to the one of "data profile" that it won't be objected to, hopefully). And if you want you may have one for "functional profile" (and I think this could be a job for a PR, i.e. after CR). In fact wrt 2 it may be better if we would never used the shortened form, making sure each notion is properly spelled out each time is mentioned. This would also make it easier for a future WG to systematically change the spec to accommodate a different (wider?) notion of profile if they've got the use cases for it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022#issuecomment-533913607 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 22 September 2019 20:02:57 UTC