Re: [dxwg] A profile must be packaged as a self-contained artefact

I think the confusion is between concept and implementation - hierarchical
profiles can be implemented by reference, by platform-specific import
(owl:imports) or by duplicating clauses.

i dont think anyone disagrees about the usefulness of flattening out the
implementation for convenience - but even in PDF documents the statements
about conformance to other baseline specifications and profiles express the
hierarchy. Such hierarchies are currently expressed in text, making
interoperability a challenge for any machine readability supported
applications.

Just because there is a gap in implementation around expressing these
hierarchies (actually two obvious gaps - one at the profile description
level and the other in the "perfect" constraints language) doesnt mean that
either requirement is invalid.

We do seem to be missing any Use Cases that explicitly state the need to
flatten in implementation (and IMHO retain metadata about the base
specification that defines a constraint or set of constraints). So instead
of pushing back against clear requirements to support hierarchical
_definition_ of profiles, let us establish requirements for flattened
_implementations_.




On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 20:08 makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
wrote:

> @kcoyle Karen, you are right. The RDF file for DCAT-AP is 'flat' as it
> includes all axioms from DCAT, DC and others. The same is true, as far as I
> know, of most, if not all, national profiles based on the European profile.
>
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers
> Please view or discuss this issue at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/228#issuecomment-399744866 using your
> GitHub account
>
>