When reviewing the contents of the IG, it is not clear when review which profiles are abstract and which are implementable. I would propose we adopt a consistant naming convention to clearly indicate to a reviewer the type of profile. This would need to be reflected on the profile page itself, the profiles name on the TOC, and any reference to it on other pages in the IG.

On the TOC, we could include a note explaining our naming convention.

Ideas:

1) Append a common suffix to profile names (like " - Base" or "- Abstract" or perhaps " (A)")

2) To match the diagrams, italizie the name on the TOC page - though this is unlikely to work n the profile page)