- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:01:47 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
(Moving discussion here from #94) Over at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/94#issuecomment-365867941 @aisaac wrote: > it adds one class to the DCAT mix, it diverts attention to what really matters (i.e. which parts of PROV to re-use besides prov:Entity) I would say in principle there is no limit to which parts of PROV may be re-used. The more I explore PROV, the more byways I find myself traveling down. So I only see opportunities, not risks. I note your comment about what was done in DQV. However, I also see that some of DQV is sub-classed from QB, which brings plenty of its own baggage. So perhaps you can explain why that made sense, while subclassing dcat:Dataset from prov:Entity doesn't. The scope of DCAT has a significant overlap with the scope of PROV. PROV is a W3C vocabulary. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/128#issuecomment-366076183 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2018 22:01:50 UTC