Re: [dxwg] Rename Resource Descriptor class

I agree with @kcoyle that we should avoid 'distribution' in any part of this classe's name as that would  give the DCAT-based impression that this class is a representation of the Profile's whole which won't be the case. We know people will use this class to link in guidance documents, validation files etc. which are only parts of the whole profile. 

In Issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/572 we are circling around 'profile object' or other, similar, terms that indicate a part of the (Profile's) whole, rather than a distribution of the profile as a whole. I like that direction better and wonder about the general use then of `:Profile dct:hasPart :ThisClass .`. since the decinition of `dct:hasPart` is "A related resource that is included either physically or logically in the described resource.", to me, this class does represent some such object, with the additional requirement we think we have to indicate a role for that part.

If this class were called `ProfileObject` (I'm not trilled by "object" as, like "resource" it's generic) and had the properties we currenly indicate for it (a `dct:format`, `dct:conformsTo`, `prof:role`) then we might have something that's simpler (using more well-known DCT terms, fewer custom terms) and yet able to do what `ProfileDescritpr` was designed to do.

@rob-metalinkage: would use of `dct:hasPart` to indicate object of this class from a `Profile` object be problematic? Assuming this object still then lead to the artifact itself?


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573#issuecomment-439748593 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 01:52:18 UTC