Re: [dxwg] Qualified forms [RQF]

I would like to extend the remit of this requirement so that it reads:

"Define qualified forms to specify additional attributes of appropriate binary relations (e.g. temporal context) **and to allow for the handling of relationship extensions in code lists.**"

This is because one of the main reasons for using qualified forms (as per PROV or ISO19115), is to allow a relationship to be defined with a *role* or other qualified term to be added not to supply "additional attributes" but to allow the role to come from an expandable code list whose elements are not defined within the model.

**Code Lists example**  
An example in pseudo code. Rather than defining Dataset -> Agent relations like this:

`Dataset_X publisher Agent_Y`
`Dataset_X owner Agent_Y`
`Dataset_X <some_named_relation> Agent_Y`

Instead, ISO19115 and PROV and others do this:

`Dataset_X related_to Agent_Y (role: publisher)`
`Dataset_X related_to Agent_Y (role: owner)`
`Dataset_X related_to Agent_Y (role: <some_named_relation>)`

with a codelist table:

`publisher`  
`owner`  
`...`

In PROV, a qualified Dataset/Agent role is given by a `qualifiedAttribution` construction e.g.:

```
:Dataset_X 
   a prov:Entity;
   prov:qualifiedAttribution [
      a prov:Attribution;
      prov:agent :Agent_Y;
      ex:hadRole :publisher;
   ]
```

**Proposal**  
DCAT2018 could keep the current DCAT2014 direct properties (`dct:publisher`) but then map that to a property chain axiom as per the example above and then allow external codelists (vocabs) of roles to define more than the standard `dct` role properties.



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/79#issuecomment-391176557 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2018 23:51:32 UTC