Re: [dxwg] Profiles may be written in or may link to a document or schema in a validation language (ShEx, SHACL, XMLschema). [ID41] (5.41) from Simon Cox via GitHub on 2018-09-03 (public-dxwg-wg@w3.org from September 2018)

From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 00:07:47 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-417969642-1535933266-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

OK - fair enough. A `dct:Standard` is not _necessarily_ a `dcat:Resource` - at least it is not until it has been added to a `dcat:Catalog` somewhere &#9786; Of course the same applies to a `profdesc:Profile`. So strictly I think we should have something like this

![Cataloguing standards UML](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/dxwg/gh-pages/dcat/UML/Standard.png) 

This separates the DCAT concerns (which are about cataloguing) and the Profile concerns (which are about standards). 

Of course it is not necessary to axiomatize the `dcat:Catalogued*` classes directly, just give the catalogued resources both types e.g. 
```
my:StandardABC 
    rdf:type dcat:Resource ; 
    rdf:type dct:Standard . 
```
Thinking about how this all relates to ADMS you might go to 
![Cataloguing assets UML](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/dxwg/gh-pages/dcat/UML/Asset.png) 
Not sure how much of this we would want to follow through with. 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/279#issuecomment-417969642 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 3 September 2018 00:07:48 UTC