- 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