- From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 01:27:17 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@makxdekkers, I think this is really a moot discussion due to the nature of the profiles ontology. Look again at the profiles ontology and you'll see that there are NO terms describing the profile itself or the resources, other than a small number of relationships between profiles and resources. Here are the properties associated with the main classes: Profile: hasProfile hasResource isProfileOf isTransitiveProfileOf hasToken ResourceDescriptor: hasArtifact dct:conformsTo dct:format hasRole isInheritedFrom Compare that to how rich the descriptions of dcat:Catalog and dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution are. There is nothing of that nature in the profiles ontology. The properties given in @smrgeoinfo 's diagram are not included in the ontology, and there isn't much to tell us what information would live where. It isn't even clear to me what properties one could include to describe a profile at the prof:Profile level because it's current a pretty vague concept, but I suspect a property set would be more sparse than one has in DCAT because what "makes up" the profile could vary greatly. In fact, we don't know much about what would make up a profile, if all "resources" would have the same author or institution, etc. None of this is specified in the ontology. In any case, while @smrgeoinfo's model may appeal, it is not representative of what we are offering as a FPWD. If you do read that into the profiles ontology then you should present a proposal to the group and see what comes of it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573#issuecomment-439660286 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2018 01:27:18 UTC