- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 21:02:00 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@smrgeoinfo Of course - if you wanted to model different types as constraints you can do this using the profiles ontology - e.g. :type1Profile rdfs:subClassOf prof:Profile ; rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:restriction owl:onProperty prof:profileOf owl:maxCardinality 1 owl:minCardinality 1 ] rdfs:comment "a type1Profile is conformant to all requirements of its parent profile related by the profileOf property and introduces no other requirements from other specifications" ; . But I still fail to see how a client would take advantage of a typology. Its more important to deal with this in the implementing artefacts - finding a language expressive enough to allow constraints to be overridden. Something like SHACL, you simply include the rules from all inherited profiles and the resulting rule set is satisfiable. You may delete redundant rules for computational efficiency if you can detect them - but thats an engineering concern not a logical one. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/486#issuecomment-435185979 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2018 21:02:01 UTC