- From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:34:00 -0400
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I find "profile" to be a natural fit for the sorts of things that this group has been calling "fragments". It is a much more well recognized term for this kind of thing, and I would like to see us use it. -Evan Sandro Hawke wrote: > In last weeks telecon we talked a little about the use of the term > "Fragments" and the chair said we should continue off-line. > > I propose we stick with "profile", as per the QA Working Group [1]: > > A profile is a subset of the technology that supports a particular > functional objective.... > > Profiles can be based on hardware considerations associated with > target product classes -- for example, SVG Tiny is aimed at mobile > phones -- or they may be driven by other functional requirements of > their target constituencies -- for example, a graphical profile > tailored for technical illustrations in aircraft maintenance > manuals. > > and Wikipedia [2]: > > an agreed-upon subset and interpretation of a specification. > > Not exciting, and jargon (like "fragments" is), but hey... > > -- Sandro > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/#subdivision-profile > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile >
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 20:36:31 UTC