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

Re: [dxwg] prof:inheritedFrom needs more convincing case and/or example (#642)

From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:08:03 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-459424900-1548954481-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@rob-metalinkage  said: "noting that prof:inheritedFrom applies to the qualified associations of type "ResourceDescriptor" - not on the profile..."

This may be the source of my confusion because all of the **requirements** related to inheritance all speak of **profile inheritance**.  From the draft profiles guidance document:

"2..4 Profile inheritance [RPFINHER]
Profiles may add to or specialise clauses from one or more base specifications. Such profiles inherit all the constraints from base specifications."

In addition we have this, which I think may also refer to resources rather than profiles:

"2.3 Profile of profiles [RPFPP]
One can create a profile of profiles, with elements potentially inherited on several levels."

In 2.3 it is unclear whether this speaks of a prof:Profile with resources, or a single document (e.g. a SHACL document) whose rules are referred to here as "elements". 

Unfortunately I have no idea what is meant by:
"In guidance - we could suggest that profiles are available in the flattened view with resources defining the full constraints - we could declare a canonical name for this profile of the Profile ontology if you think it would help." 

What is a "flattened view" of a profile? Then, it seems clear that the resources define the profile, although only some of them define constraints. 

I do not support the idea of stating that there is inheritance and then "up to implementations to worry about checking constraints are satisfiable". I don't see utility in stating something that is so ill-defined in its practice.

Personally, I would not want to include this definition of inheritance of resources in the guidance document because it appears to be very implementation-specific and the guidance document will be more general. (Also, it seems to contradict the requirements we have.) I see a difficulty in indicating specific relationships between profile documents (profont resources) without making the guidance document solely about the profont ontology model. In our profiles requirements we are not specifying roles, resources, etc. but the "best practices" for profiles, regardless of how they are modeled. This "inheritance of resources" issue doesn't fit there, IMO.

Also, I would like to see responses to my other two comments. Thanks.

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/642#issuecomment-459424900 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2019 17:08:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:06 UTC