Examine JSON-LD Framing specification for relation to Profiles abstract model

[nicholascar]

https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-framing/

[nicholascar]

Closing as handled by alignment in Issue w3c/dxwg#405

[kcoyle]

Get group consensus, then close.

[aisaac]

@nicholascar @rob-metalinkage I think it's more efficient to discuss the issue here rather than with other alignments topics at w3c/dxwg#405...
Especially as my question is very generic: do we actually need a part on JSON-LD framing in PROF? Wouldn't that be for Profile Guidance instead? Especially considering the discussion at w3c/dxwg#976 which proposes to consider that JSON-LD "forms" (and thus JSON-LD frames, which are a specific type of form if I understand correctly)

[rob-metalinkage]

@isaac I agree this seems to be about equivalence of different mechanisms and terminology - and a matter for guidance. If a JSON-LD "frame" has a URI you can make statements about in PROF like another other form of specification - so it doesnt need any special treatment. There appears to be a lot of angst about whether different forms of profile are equivalent, which might get resolved if people tried describing their profiles in terms of exactly what they are intended to achieve, but nothing so far indicates something new we can't handle if we describe potential roles of resources well.

[aisaac]

OK then let's try to address this in Guidance - and after we've closed w3c/dxwg#976 :-)

[nicholascar]

Due for closing from PROF's point of view as being handled in Guidance.

[aisaac]

@nicholascar sounds good but let's be careful not to accidentally close it, as it must remain open from the perspective of Guidance :-)