W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2018

Re: [dxwg] Change domain or create superclass of dcat:Distribution

From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 01:45:20 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-417978633-1535939119-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I'm with Makx about the "abstract" classes, but even more so because I don't see the need for dcat:Representation unless it will be the domain of something in the DCAT RDF. I also am a bit concerned about the alignment of properties with classes in the diagram when those properties in the .ttl file do not have that class as a domain. This means that a property like dcat:contactPoint can actually be used without regard to any class adherence because it has no domain (unless I missed it, sorry). I can understand organizing a UML with these structural concepts as a form of documentation, but only if we agree that this doesn't reflect the graph structure. To manage the structure in this diagram you of course need a validation language like SHACL or ShEx -- or an application profle. 

For this reason I conclude that dcat:Representation is not needed. However, I defer to @azaroth42 who did a brilliant analysis of the necessary and less necessary classes of an RDF/OWL ontology in the museum world, and managed to reduce the ontology to its necessary parts. RobS?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/317#issuecomment-417978633 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 3 September 2018 01:45:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2019 10:33:25 UTC