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.


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