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

Re: [dxwg] prof:profileOf sub-property of prov:wasDerivedFrom (!?) (#485)

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:03:44 +1100
Message-ID: <CACfF9Lx4WtoGMOMrRwXWFfk8-MgExgRW57Bmhi8YNezimGnqyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
profileOf means that all constraints of the base specification are
transitively inherited - this does not imply that this inheritance is
described axiomatically.  Constraints languages may support such axioms,
but for now its a significant step forward to be able to declare these
dependencies and to find and classify related resources.

As it seems a consistent challenge to keep separate issues of expressivity
of constraint languages from description of a profile perhaps we should
introduce a new tag:  "constrain-language" for those issues, then we can
deal with these in the profile guidance document.  It also highlights the
potential nature of Profile as a sort of dcat:Resource - at least thats the
way it can be thought of -  its a thing with some specific relationships we
want to have very particular meanings (i,e. inheritance of constraints) but
it otherwise describable using standard vocabs - dcat, dc, prov etc.

the profile guidance document cant at this stage point to a constraint
langauge that handles the inheritance axiomatically, so a combination of
the profile ontology and a constraint language of your choice can carry the
information, and implementations will need to work out how to handle the
inheritance - for example requiring that each profile is published with a
resource that defines the full set of constraints, or requiring that all
inherited constraints are satisfied independently.


On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 06:53, Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
wrote:

> @kcoyle said:
>
> > [...] This also argues for making profileOf conceptual rather than
> axiomatic because it would be difficult to define an axiom that could be
> true in such a wide variety of cases.
>
> +1 from me. I totally agree.
>
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
> Please view or discuss this issue at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/485#issuecomment-460082500 using your
> GitHub account
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2019 23:04:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:12 UTC