W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > April 2019

Re: [dxwg] Use owl:Restriction constraints to bind DC properties to DCAT classes (#105)

From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 09:14:21 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-479407694-1554282860-sysbot+gh@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:16 UTC