- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:04:02 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@greiner - some other "uses" relationship can handle cases where terms are used but conformance to a "base" is not. If you import that base in OWL imports of course you buy _every_ restriction in the base - so if you conform to OWL semantics you conform to the base. generally simple vocabs without OWL axiomitisation introduce just one type of constraint - if you use a term T then you honour its datatype and semantics... all RDF vocabs also conform to the RDF specification at a low level - the same is true for every encoding - so whilst it would be technically correct to describe these using dct:conformsTo obviously nobody would and there is a more specialised relationship (dc:format) that states the same thing for the encoding aspect only. So - its a matter of community choice whether to include common base vocabularies in the statements of conformance they wish to make. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/844#issuecomment-530118766 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2019 21:04:03 UTC