- From: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 03:11:08 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> There are specific ontologies for particular resource types, so the need for defining general resource descriptors has to be justified. When referring to data exchange situations, it has to be specified what exactly can be captured as contextual information. I assume when you say "ontologies for particular resource types" you mean something like the [DCMI Type Vocabulary](https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#section-7) and perhaps more details ontologies that provide taxonomies of resource types? If so, my answer here is that: PROF doesn't provide a taxonomy of resource types only a way of associating resources to profiles (identified by URI and able to be used as conformance targets) and several properties for describing those resources, such as `dct:format` and `prof:hasRole`. One could add `dct:type` to indicate a DCMI Type Vocabulary class or any other property that can be added to a descriptor of an artefact to describe the artefact (i.e. to a `ResourceDescriptor`, not the artefact itself). You *could always, as per normal OWL/RDF* add further descriptors to an artefact! This is not excluded by PROF. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/796#issuecomment-557968700 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 25 November 2019 03:11:10 UTC