W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > January 2019

Re: [dxwg] Are the main prof: classes association-classes? (#638)

From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:14:22 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-452510515-1546992861-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
This is a good discussion. Having roles as concepts/classes is not ideal. On the other hand, it's awkward to create many sub-properties of prof:hasResource and/or prof:hasArtefact. Even more importantly, it could be that roles for Resource Descriptors and their artefacts are actually 'essential' (in the sense of formal ontology). E.g., an XML schema could be said to *always* be usable for validation. So it's not a 'role' anymore (again, in the sense of formal ontology) anymore, it becomes closer to a type.

Of course this needs to be tested against the roles that we agree on. Which probably means that we should have the discussion once we've agreed on all the roles we need.
(incidentally, this would also be a point for including the list of roles we want into the PROF ontology recommendation!)

NB: I would rather hold off discussion on `BaseSpecification` in this issue until we're sure we want to keep this class, i.e. until #641 is closed.

GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/638#issuecomment-452510515 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2019 00:14:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:05 UTC