OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles. Attempting a definition.

2008/6/17 Shawn <sgrover@open2space.com>:

> I believe the Wikipedia definition is the most generic and probably the most
> appropriate for our needs here.  (of those listed)

Any changes to it?
an application profile is a set of metadata elements, policies, and
guidelines defined for a particular application.

The elements may be from one or more element sets, thus allowing a
given application to meet its functional requirements by using
metadata from several element sets including locally defined sets.

I'm happy with the first para as most general.
The second para is too constraining? That could take 'profile' out
of the domain of application usage which, IMHO, is wrong.

Definition: "an application profile is a set of policies, and
guidelines defined for a particular application."

Removing the metadata aspect gives a workable definition
which I think it usable for ODF?

> I think the TC will need to deal with application, document, and standard
> specific profiles.  (standard specific, meaning to test part of the ODF
> standard that may or may not be part of an application or document profile).
>  Or would what I'm calling "standard specific" be a subset of the "document"
> type profiles?

Yes, by my definitions? Some subset of the full ODF schema would
constitute an ODF document profile.

No disagreement, let the TC determine what they include/exclude,
but let them know what we saw as a profile, that's my goal.

> But This is sort of what I was trying to get at earlier.  If we were to
> choose the Wikipedia definition of profile (or whichever the list decides is
> suitable) for inclusion in the charter,

Or even more loosely coupled, on Sams site? I see no reason for
the actual definition to be included. Just so long as they know what
we (thought) we were talking about.

> and offer some potential examples,
> that should leave lots of freedom to the TC to do what they need, but still
> have that starting point.

Yes, for me the examples work far better than a definition,
but then again, I'm not a wordsmith.


Dave Pawson

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]