- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 22:14:45 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
There is currently NO notion of a relationship "conformsTo" between profiles in either identified requirements or the ontology - this relationship is between data instances and profiles. If there is wording in docs that suggests this it needs to be corrected. This suggests the "conformance Target" discussions for both profile guidance doc #525 and individual profile descriptions #521 need to be prioritised to improve shared understanding here. The only relationship between profiles (and base specifications) is profileOf The issue of "uses" vs "constrains use of" may itself be a matter of conformance targets - what is the conformance target of dublin core? This becomes very relevant to the "flattening" discussion too - no one ever duplicates every vocabulary they use in a "flat" profile. i.e. they are never truly standalone (nor would they be useful if they were) So it seems as if practically the transitivity entailment might be exclusive of base specifications - which supports my instinct to model it explicitly in profiles ontology even though no behaviour was yet specified. We formalise this with conditions, or sub-properties ( profileOf subPropertyOf uses ?) I'd be reluctant to rely on explicit statement that something is a "base specification" - everything is built on something and thats a community perspective how deep you need to declare it. Perhaps we need a section "profile conformance in an open world" - under open world any vocabulary can be used and an instance may conform to any number of specifications without it being significant w.r.t. a given statement about profile conformance. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/507#issuecomment-434866411 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2018 22:14:46 UTC