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

Re: [dxwg] Are PROF roles misplaced in resourceDescription? (#769)

From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 05:42:24 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-466280998-1550814134-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Actually, what @no-reply and I discussed is not related to implementation, it is a modelling issue. But now I see that a carriage return got missed so the example I gave wasn't clear. Here it is again:

    a  prof:ResourceDescriptor;
   dct:description "The Guidance Document for this profile." ;
    prof:hasRole roles:guidance ;
    prof:hasArtifact  <https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/...17d4> .

        dct: format <https://w3id.org/mediatypes/application/pdf> ;
        dct:title "DCAT-AP Guidance Document (PDF)" ;
	dct:datePublished "1996" .
The main difference is that dct:format is a property on the artifact, not on the resource descriptor, and that we anticipate a graph of information points linked to the artifact and no information about the artifact itself in the resource description graph. What the original example, which I copied from examples in github, says is that the graph that is a prof:ResourceDescriptor has a dct:format. (dct:format defines the format of the subject of the triple, which in this case is the resource descriptor.) That is not what I think is meant - it is the artifact that has a format. The format of the artifact is not a function of being linked to the profile - it is a persistent character of the artifact. A change in format would be a change in its identity - it would be a different artifact.

This could perhaps be solved by not including dct:format in the vocabulary, instead avoiding any description of the artifact. The assumption would be that if the artifact needs to be described, that would take place elsewhere in the "universal graph". We could hope that people provide the information about their profile-related data, but that may not be enough. It might be necessary for the PROF vocabulary to go further and specify a minimal core of information relating to artifacts if there are use cases that depend on this information. I suspect that the [content negotiation proposal](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/) is such a use case.

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/769#issuecomment-466280998 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 22 February 2019 05:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:13 UTC