SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM Archives

October 2019

SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Pullen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 8 Oct 2019 23:05:57 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
The C2SIM standard needs to include a definition of compliance.

Some ideas that have been put forward include (1) require all Core data classes to be implemented (2) choose mandatory classes and include for them an ontology property "mustBeImplemented" (3) require that compliant systems are able to receive Core classes without exception, but not that the systems be able to use that data.

If you like any of these or have another idea to recommend, please respond to this email.

Mark

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PDG-PSG-C2SIM&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2