Re: Removed domain and range from 3rd party vocabularies

 

Hi Eric, 

First of all, thank you for your efforts in writing the document. 

My concern is about the formal definition of duv. This formal definition
could be used by reasoners to conclude things. 

I liked the use of vann:Usage. 

I still have some concerns: 

1. In the diagram there is a property "cito:isCitedBy" that appears in
the specification as "duv:isCitedBy"; 

2. The range of the property "duv:refersTo" has two possible classes:
"dcat:Dataset" and "dcat:Distribution". If that way, when someone
defines an usage, an inference machine will conclude that it refers to a
resource that is both a "dcat:Dataset" and a "dcat:Distribution". And I
think this is not the case. 

 I see three options: 
 a) one single property: "duv:refersTo" without range definitions; 
 b) two properties: "duv:refersToDataset" with range "dcat:Dataset", and
"duv:refersToDistribution" with range "dcat:Distribution"; 
 c) options a) and b) with properties "duv:refersToDataset" and
"duv:refersToDistribution" as subproperties of "duv:refersTo" (I prefer
this). 

3. The same thing occurs in respect to the domain of properties
"duv:hasUsage" and "duv:hasUserFeedback". 

Thank you a lot again. 

Cheers, Laufer 

--
. . . .. . . 
. . . ..
. .. . 

Em 19/12/2015 12:23, Eric Stephan escreveu: 

> Hi Laufer, 
> 
> I've removed the domain and range from 3rd party properties and replaced them with a vann:Usage statement as Phil suggested to at least document the preferred use of the vocabulary from the DUV perspective. 
> 
> Could you take a look when you get a chance to see if this satisfies your concerns? 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Eric S