Guidance definitions

[nicholascar]

Here are the Plenary-approved definitions which I've PRed into Conneg & PROF for the Guidance document. The only content change in this PR is the definitions addition but I've extensively reformatted the HTML of the document to regularise it to allow for easier future editing. I've separated the formatting & definitional addition commits.

[rob-metalinkage]

fine for guidance to be specifically about data profiles - but this is a special case of the more general sense of profiles (OGC service profiles are not data profiles - even they do also specify data profiles as part of a wider functional behaviour.) All is needs is a statement recognising this fact and scoping the document to data profiles.

[nicholascar]

I've indicated that this doc is scoped to data profiles only.

[aisaac]

Thanks for putting the new definition in, @nicholascar !

Some comments:

• The definition is still the old one in the abstract. Maybe we could just remove the abstract?
• The sentence with "We have taken this variability into account [...]" cannot be really replaced "Within this document we concentrate on data profiles [...]". There is variability even for the notion of 'data profile', I would say, and we need to still acknowledge this. The second part of the sentence is not correct by the way. Maybe it's simpler to remove that sentence for the moment.
• I think it's still useful to keep the reference to https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/ProfileContext after the definitions (well, it is now, after I've updated the page ;-) )
• in "which can have the status of a Standard" the capitalization after this bit was on purpose (but well it's not crucial as long as the note below the paragraph is kept
• I'm ok removing the appendix with definitions at but I'd like to keep the reference to #418 so that we don't forget to close (and maybe have one last check) later.

Isn't it possible to uncouple the coding changes? Accepting them would be useful!

[pwin]

Is this so stale that it should be closed and if necessary brought forward as a new piece of work that is up to date with the current specs?

[aisaac]

I think the new specs wouldn't necessarily bring many changes. But I agree it's completely stale :-(

[aisaac]

This said it would be a pity to throw this commit away. Not sure how to handle it...