- From: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 03:28:24 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> The relationship between specification and profile is an IS A relationship
As per PROF so far:
```
:Profile rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf dct:Standard ;
```
So yes, every `prof:Profile` IS A `dct:Standard` but also:
```
:isProfileOf rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
rdfs:domain :Profile ;
rdfs:range dct:Standard ;
```
And it's this that really makes `prof:Profile` something a bit more than just a rewrite of the `dct:Standard` class. Profiles really are a profile of something, even if that profiling is trivial (a Standard being a profile of itself).
Don't forget the expected use of:
```
X dct:conformsTo <Profile_Y> .
```
So things can conform to profiles, identified by some URI.
Am I right in asserting that the above, very long discussion, won't require any changes to these core concepts in PROF?
--
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-511264597 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 15 July 2019 03:28:26 UTC