- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:40:17 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
OK - the concept is so simple its hard to see why there is any debate, except for perhaps people trying to characterise generic re-use in OWA as some sort of profiling (it isnt). So here it is in code, maybe that will help: :aResource dct:conformsTo :Profile1 . :Profile1 prof:isProfileOf :Profile2 . entails: :aResource dct:conformsTo :Profile2 . we can add an OWL axiom to formalise this entailment - i think it would look like this dct:conformsTo owl:PropertyAxiom ( dct:conformsTo prof:isProfileOf) also note (because it seems to also be misunderstood or queried often enough): :Profile1 a dct:Standard . (from dct:conformsTo range definition) :Profile2 a dct:Standard (from isProfileOf range definition) I will add this as a proposal to a new issue (#844 ) so it can be dealt with properly independently of the original question. So the answer to the original question is "no", if you mean elements defined in the context of "underlying namespaces" but "yes" if you mean constraints on elements referenced indirectly through isProfileOf. So, it would be a stretch to characterise re-use as profiling but as that's not what we are saying we should close this issue. Improved definitions and examples should address the issue. Please vote to close this. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/802#issuecomment-476418533 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 25 March 2019 23:40:18 UTC