- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:22:08 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@nicholascar yes I believe that all these long discussions don't change what we've tried to specify for some months already. Also the profiles use cases and the profile guidance draft won't be impacted that much I believe. I'm not a big fan of profiles being profiles of themselves, but as I see it in the formal definitions floated around this is merely a possibility not a duty so I can live with that :-) @dr-shorthair @larsgsvensson yes I guess we can either define the Profile class with OWL and/or SHACL the way you've done it or similar, and that should end in the PROF ontology. Perhaps it's already there in fact. Btw just checking: your two definitions are equivalent, aren't they? -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-511951029 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2019 19:22:09 UTC