Re: [dxwg] Change domain or create superclass of dcat:Distribution

I'm with Makx about the "abstract" classes, but even more so because I don't see the need for dcat:Representation unless it will be the domain of something in the DCAT RDF. I also am a bit concerned about the alignment of properties with classes in the diagram when those properties in the .ttl file do not have that class as a domain. This means that a property like dcat:contactPoint can actually be used without regard to any class adherence because it has no domain (unless I missed it, sorry). I can understand organizing a UML with these structural concepts as a form of documentation, but only if we agree that this doesn't reflect the graph structure. To manage the structure in this diagram you of course need a validation language like SHACL or ShEx -- or an application profle. 

For this reason I conclude that dcat:Representation is not needed. However, I defer to @azaroth42 who did a brilliant analysis of the necessary and less necessary classes of an RDF/OWL ontology in the museum world, and managed to reduce the ontology to its necessary parts. RobS?

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 3 September 2018 01:45:21 UTC