- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 08:41:38 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I'd prefer to leave it out altogether as you can guess, @nicholascar .
If it has to stay, then I think `owl:equivalentClass` would be better.
In fact it's nice to see that the ontology is more precise than its spec. But then again, the question is whether the precision goes in the direction we were expecting. As our original definition of profiles is, and as intuition can lead us to think in some case (just like when you wrote "From the point of view of DCAT-AP, DCAT may indeed be it's Base Spec." above) one may instead expect the equivalent class to be:
```
prof:BaseSpecification
a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf prof:Profile ,
owl:equivalentClass [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty prof:hasProfile ;
owl:minCardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
] ;
```
Again i think I'd just prefer to have nothing rather than to try to fix all this. Unless there is a rela requirement that this class (in one or the other understanding) would help to meet.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/641#issuecomment-453014307 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2019 08:41:39 UTC