Re: [dxwg] property profileOfTransitive

When one defines a property P to be a transitive property, this means that
if a pair (x,y) is an instance of P, and the pair (y,z) is also instance of
P, then we can infer the the pair (x,z) is also an instance of P.Happy to
take on board the suggestion and see what the consensus is.

its important to be clear of the semantics here :-)

def of transitive : "(of a relation) such that, if it applies between
successive members of a sequence, it must also apply between any two
members taken in order. For instance, if A is larger than B, and B is
larger than C, then A is larger than C."

or in the OWL spec; "When one defines a property P to be a transitive
property, this means that if a pair (x,y) is an instance of P, and the pair
(y,z) is also instance of P, then we can infer the the pair (x,z) is also
an instance of P."


a object conforming to profile A is also conformant to all profiles P where
A transitiveProfileOf P

so for the case:
"profileC is a profile of A and B although it uses only portions of A and B
"

profileC is still bound by any cardinality constraints in either A or B

NB a vocabulary where terms are defined and no cardinality is defined
(everything is optional) means that any object may "conform" to it if the
use of those properties are consistent.  We may need to think about the
case where no properties are used at all

is the graph

"A1 a owl:Thing . "

conformant to a profile of dublin core that introduces no cardinality
constraints?

would we need to safeguard reasoners against lots of trivial conformance
statements?






On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 02:19, kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org> wrote:

> @riccardoAlbertoni I will give you a thumbs up from a native speaker point
> of view regarding profileOfTransitive, but I would also question whether
> "transitive" expresses the intended meaning here. Although the usage here
> is similar to SKOS's broaderTransitive, I feel like the relationships
> between profiles is more complex than the "broader/narrower" type as used
> in SKOS. I am thinking of the case where:
>
> vocabularyA exists
> vocabularyB exists
> profileC is a profile of A and B although it uses only portions of A and
> B
> profileD is a profile of C  using some portions of profileC but adding
> terms from another vocabulary
>
> Under what conditions could you say that profileD is a profile
> of(transitive) profileC? Do they have to use all of the same terms and
> constraints? I feel like this question gets very complex very quickly. At
> the very least, there would need to be rules that govern transitivity.
>
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
> Please view or discuss this issue at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/486#issuecomment-432291471 using your
> GitHub account
>
>