- From: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 07:42:54 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle I think it reasonable to continue this here. We haven't got a better place for this really.
I know the `dct:hasFormat` property and I think what you're saying is that you could have something like this:
```
# just testing these names, not promising anything!
:Profile_X a prof:Profile ;
prof:hasPart
:ProfileObject_M ,
:ProfileObject_N ,
:ProfileObject_Y ,
:ProfileObject_Z .
# a guidance doc
:ProfileObject_M a prof:ProfileObject ;
:hasRole role:Guidance ;
dct:format <http://w3id.org/mediatype/application/pdf> ;
dct:hasFormat :ProfileObject_Z . # i.e. there is another 'form' of this 'ProfileObject'
# the same thing as :ProfileObject_M excpet it's a PDF, this is a Word doc
:ProfileObject_N dct:format <http://w3id.org/mediatype/application/msword> .
# a SHACL constraints document
:ProfileObject_Y a prof:ProfileObject ;
:hasRole role:Validation ;
dct:format <http://w3id.org/mediatype/application/msword> ;
dct:hasFormat :ProfileObject_Z ;
dct:conformsTo <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> .
# all the same properties as :ProfileObject_Y except for dct:format
:ProfileObject_Z dct:format <http://w3id.org/mediatype/application/ld+json> .
```
Is that what you meant? I can see that this would be a quick way to represent parts of profiles that are substantially the same with just a format difference. Here I'm using my above proposed `dct:hasPart` to indicate these 'ProfileObjects' within the overall Profile. the `hasRole` is giving all of the parts meaning, so we haven't lost anything from the original ontology, but this all seems simpler and more intuitive than Descriptors, Deistributions etc.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573#issuecomment-439798961 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 07:42:55 UTC