- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 07:56:53 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Adding to what was said, and clarifying my words... It is perfectly fine to use a (regular) ontology like Schema.org, or even a (instance-level) database like Wikidata for dcat:themeTaxonomy. And with the current axiomatization, formally it's fine to use the members of these, e.g., an OWL class from the ontology (schema:Painting), or a city from DBpedia (dbpedia:london), as the object of dcat:theme. Yet there is indeed an expectation that what's used for dcat:theme would qualify as skos:Concept. Some users may thus be reluctant to use schema:Painting or dbpedia:london on that basis. And even if they do, there is the formal range that kicks in: schema:Painting and dbpedia:london could be formally classified as skos:Concept by a reasoner that apply the semantics of DCAT, if they're used as objects for dcat:them. This could raise an issue for some systems (especially the one which would assume, say, the class dbpedia:City to be disjoint with skos:Concept) Let me be clear: I am actually completely fine with that sort of flexible classification of resources as SKOS Concepts. But that sort of thing has not been called 'crossing the streams' by the SKOS group without a reason. Some people (well, especially data modelers) can be quite averse to doing it. So maybe the wording of the notes could be adapted to better reflect the situation. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1153#issuecomment-549705960 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2019 07:56:55 UTC