- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 05:18:07 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
what is mandatory is that is you use a term you use it according to its definition - mandatory cardinality is one case of this, but you cannot have dc:author "3"xsd:int to indicate there were 3 authors - therefore there is a specification you can validate against. I can see that "mandatory" is too confusing a general term - we could find something else that means "semantically consistent with and, if syntax is specified, syntactically consistent with" I dont think there is problem saying all documents that use terms from "the main library schema" in a semantically consistent fashion and include the single mandatory (of cardinality) term conform to the schema - as we have i think established conformance is up to communities to decide - but thats a general notion that works for any vocabulary. (Are you sure the issue of confusing cardinality and semantics actually covers all the concerns raised? - i would have thought there would be profiles that provide recommendations ( such as authors use ORCID identifiers where known ) which a not mandatory - but following the semantics of "author" is still mandatory, and possibly including at least one author is mandatory - and possibility including all contributing authors is mandatory (which is an example of a possible profile of the semantics of "author", which does not require all authors to be included). The point is the definition needs to be useful - and describe a behaviour which is distinct and useful to declare. It also needs to be unambiguous. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/990#issuecomment-511174238 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 14 July 2019 05:18:09 UTC