Re: [dxwg] vCard and FOAF? (#955)

@makxdekkers I agree that the two properties are semantically different but I don’t think that it is only a matter of elegance of design. In my view there is also a component of usability due to overlapping definitions.
In the current situation you are implicitly making quite strong assumptions and suggesting choices that affect implementation e.g as @andrea-perego pointed out the same physical person should not be `creator` and `contact point` of one resource.

However, even assuming that scenario, things can get complicated.
For instance, when a person is  `contact point` for a Dataset she needs to be a `vcard:Individual`. If the same physical person acts as  `creator` of (another) dataset she needs to be a `foaf:Agent`. 
Similarly, if an organisation is `publisher` and `contact point` (of different resources). 

Therefore you end up having the same physical person duplicated. This implies additional work to keep consistency and align IDs (with extra relationships) and related risks.

From my experience in EPOS-DCAT-AP, it is already quite challenging dealing with integration in a multi-organisational, multi-disciplinary context. There you usually have a person that has a number of representations and IDs e.g. ORCID, SCOPUSID; and you wish to combine them in one entity associated with multiple IDs and roles. 
This is why we went for Schema.org [example](https://github.com/epos-eu/EPOS-DCAT-AP/blob/EPOS-DCAT-AP-shapes/examples/EPOS-DCAT-AP_example.ttl)

In my view introducing alignments or extending ranges might make the model more robust and enable users to decide how to apply roles and responsibilities. It would also reduce the need for additional future options. 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by ltrani
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/955#issuecomment-505494673 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2019 15:24:08 UTC