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

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

From: tombaker via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 16:13:36 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-470169602-1551888813-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I understand the second of [Karen's two diagrams](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/769#issuecomment-469287460) above but not the first. I think we addressed this point [on the list](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019Feb/0001.html). Is the first diagram an accurate representation of the model in the current PWD?

> but if you want to axiomitise the shape of that graph - for example require that the format of each artifact is declared, you need a subject of the axiom. RDFS Class, SHACL NodeShape with a targetClass, etc.

@rob-metalinkage Are you saying that a graph node must have an explicit or inferred `rdf:type` statement to be the focus of a shape?  In ShEx it would not. (I'm not sure about SHACL.)  But if artifacts are important, couldn't a class be coined?

This thread is quite long so my comments are based just on the most recent posts; apologies if I'm misreading the issue.

GitHub Notification of comment by tombaker
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/769#issuecomment-470169602 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2019 16:13:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:15 UTC