- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:05:46 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I've never like "resourceDescriptor" particularly but wanted to distinguish it from the profile and the artefact ) @aisaac is correct in terms of the semantics. Its not a problem to change names as its a tine vocabulary and we dont have a legacy to preserve - so we will publish with the best we can agree on, and what is there already if no agreement is reached - because what is there has survived two feedback cycles in the sense that nothing better has emerged (even if whats there isnt well understood by a few people, unless there is consensus on an improvement we shouldnt change it for the sake of it. ) My preference has always been for a change to a better name for ResourceDescriptor, and I never much liked hasResource anyway. ProfileObject is really really awful however - every thing in a vocabulary could be called ProfileObject and no interpretation is possible. Given that the prime reason the ResourceDescriptor exists is as a qualified role association a name closer to that might be better. all the other things we want to add to it (as per DCAT distribution), format, conformsTo etc are all clues about its role too that are easier to machine-read than descriptive text ) could people live with ResourceRole and hasResourceRole ? -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1061#issuecomment-531456306 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 14 September 2019 07:05:47 UTC