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

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

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:48:41 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-467197018-1551131321-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@kcoyle -  w.r.t. to "whether PROF is a vocabulary for DCAT profiles"  - the requirement to catalog profiles is orthogonal to the ability to to express profiles of DCAT itself.

thanks for pointing out the specific comment form the SHeX group - I think this needs to be taken to the plenary and addressed in DCAT . I am still comfortable following the DCAT lead here even though profiles are more general, since we have Use Cases of cataloguing profiles we still need an alignment to DCAT.

If DCAT does define a new property - maybe Profiles can import DCAT normatively to reuse it and make the alignment normative - or define its own property and put subPropertyOf axioms into the DCAT alignment,

Thinking about this - if we have a thing identified as R ...

and we have a graph of information about R

and we have a representation of that graph (e.g. TTL)

then:
a) the format of the graph representation is known if you have it and unless you know the format you cant inspect it to find the declaration of the format... - so dct:format relating to that representation doesnt add any value to the representation
b) the graph of information about R doesnt have a format - only representations of it do

so the range of dct:format really has to be an object that is a proxy for the real world artefact - so a statement about it _is_ a statement about the artefact.

so you're point about role is very relevant.  

In a Linked Data world.. if a ProfileResource id is dereferenced using content negotation, it could return the relevant artefact directly - so dct:format is entirely appropriate for such a behaviour.   This applies to dcat too. If that implementation pattern is not allowable for some reason we need to address it in guidance.

I am wondering if we can just axiomitise that the relationship dct:format on a ProfileResource (aka ResourceDescriptor)  entails statements about the artefact. 

maybe we raise this in plenary and create an action to get a response form the DCAT sub group? Or just raise it as a comment on DCAT


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/769#issuecomment-467197018 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 25 February 2019 21:48:43 UTC

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