- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:50:32 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Well actually I have just today made a suggestion to remove considerations of inheritance and conformance in the usage note of prof:isProfileOf, as it pollutes the discussion on semantics here, and it should probably be factored in a specific section, not spread across various bits in PROF. And it gives a bias: if we decide to follow what's in this note already, then the discussion here is moot, as indeed there can be almost no debate about the formalization of it :-) Coming back to formal axioms: the one currently on the table states that is A is a profile of B, and a dataset D conforms to A, than D should conform to B. Let's replace A by "an extension of DCAT-AP", B by "DCAT-AP", assume that "extensions" in DCAT-AP can be captured by our notion of profiling, and see whether the proposed axiom holds in the DCAT-AP context. I understand that the "recommendations" in @makxdekkers ' [document](Recommendation) imply that an extension of DCAT-AP should never introduce conditions/constraints/recommendations/whatever that makes it possible for data conformant with the extension to be non-conformant with DCAT-AP itself. (NB: the document uses the word 'minimal conformance' but I fail to see other kinds of conformance for DCAT-AP). So this seems to fit the intention of the axiom! -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/844#issuecomment-529661314 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 9 September 2019 20:50:33 UTC