- From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 09:14:21 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> I would suggest to avoid, as much as possible, including constraints in a base specification; only if it is absolutely necessary. It could lead people to invent another vocabulary if they can't work with the constraints. +1 This issue caught my eye and I'm rather new to this discussion. Is the issue still unresolved? @dr-shorthair I'm not sure what you mean when you say that OWL cardinality constraints "constrain use of a property in the context of a class". OWL restrictions place constraints on a model of reality but say nothing about cardinality that is intended to be enforced in actual data, which I take to be the requirement here. The proper place to declare cardinality constraints for the purposes of closed-world validation would be in a data shape (e.g., ShEx or SHACL), not in a model expressed with open-world semantics in OWL. In my opinion, DCAT v1 got it right when it said simply "The following properties are recommended for use on this class" (which I take as shorthand for: "The following properties are recommended for use in describing instances of this class"). An OWL class is a named set of things (the class extension). OWL cannot be used to formally put properties "on" a class. Schema.org, for example, is perfectly usable as a source of associations between classes and properties without trying to formalize that association. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/105#issuecomment-479407694 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2019 09:14:23 UTC