- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:27:43 -0500
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Karen,
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 11:16, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
> The way that the Dublin Core community sees this working is through
> published application profiles. For data which I want to share, and
> which I want to be shared widely even with folks outside of my immediate
> community, I want two things:
>
> 1) a minimally constrained ontology that is designed for re-use
> ("minimally constrained semantics" - T Gruber). This doesn't mean "no shapes" but it may well mean "insufficient for closed world validation needs"
>
> 2) a profile through which I express (in a machine-actionable form) MY
> view of MY data (which may not be how others see or choose to use the
> data I provide). This profile is what I validate against.
Is there a particular reason why 2) can’t be done by subclassing the minimally constrained ontology, assuming shapes can be associated with classes?
Thanks,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 16:28:09 UTC