- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:58:04 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
It doesnt make sense to profile W3C specifications for the sake of it .. but there are plenty of specifications where spatio-temporal aspects are worth standardising beyond W3C concerns. We already have GeoDCAT and GeoSPARQL for example. Coalescence of standards is not a scalable solution - one standard to cover all aspects of everything for all time is not a very useful idea. Profiling is a well known mechanism to provide incremental improvements in specificity to a more general standard for a particular purpose, and is much simpler to manage and govern than the alternatives: pushing changes into a base specification for a particular community, or duplicating the original standard and leaving it to the user to figure out what might have changed and no longer work. Alternatively, one could describe profiles as a means to coalesce governance overheads to meet goals with minimal effort and maximum interoperability. All I was suggesting is that its a common enough thing, and we probably ought to do a couple of things: 1. try to make profiling activities and outputs a bit consistent with each other 2. publish profile relationships so people can find out relationships between OGC and W3C specs. As to the latter - I will draft up some of these and push them as annotations to the OGC definitions server, but ideally the SDWIG could take ownership of statements about how OGC and other specs relate (above and beyond canonical statements in specs - but also where statements in specs use text labels or document locations, and unambiguous URI identifiers for such specs are established in accordance with Best Practices, which may take some time). -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1167#issuecomment-589430651 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2020 23:58:05 UTC