Re: [dxwg] Definition of "Schema" (as opposed to profile)

Having looked at Rob's und Nicholas's model again, I now see that what I call "Profile" is a conflation of what they call "Profile" and "ImplementationResourceDescriptor". What I call "Schema" is also an "ImplementationResourceDescriptor" and that's probably one reason for [my confusion](#199). The idea of the "ImplementationResourceDescriptor" is of course to have a node where we can add metainformation (e. g. that what we describe is a SHACL document serialised as Turtle) and that's completely lacking in my naive "Profile". If we have "ImplementationResourceDescriptor"s, then what they describe perhaps shouldn't be called "ImplementationResourceDescriptor", too, but "ImplementationResource"s (since that is what an ImplementationResourceDescriptor describes), and the property linking the "ImplementationResourceDescriptor" to the thing it describes could be called "prof:describes" instead of "prof:resource" (so that the rdfs:range does not make it an "ImplementationResourceDescriptor".
Then the model would be 
```
:aProfile a prof:Profile ;
    prof:hasResource :aResourceDescriptor .
:aResourceDescriptor a prof:ImplementationResourceDescriptor ;
    prof:describes :aImplementationResource ; # a shacl file serialised as turtle
    prof:resourceType ex:shacl ;
    dct:format "text/turtle" .
```
I think we've got something...

Thanks,

Lars

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/195#issuecomment-383597694 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 23 April 2018 14:35:20 UTC