- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:54:54 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@smrgeoinfo sorry but I don't think the pattern solves this. 1. I have the same objection to using "resource" here as for any other class or properties. In RDF everything is a resource, so this is very confusing. The pattern also keeps the name resourceDescriptor (the fact that it's on a property doesn't make it more likeable!) 2. dcat:Resource exemplifies the issue of using "resource" in a name, as it's in fact less general than what it sounds. It's defined as "Resource published or curated by a single agent." and "The class of all cataloged resources". These seems at odds actually, it's really two different things lumped in one class, and a class with not a great name. Anyway, whatever these two aspects of dcat:Resource mean, I'm pretty sure provide no light to the discussion here (the fact of being published by a single agents or added in a catalogue doesn't matter). 3. what's the use of having `ProfileResource` if we have another association class next to it? This makes the pattern even more complex. Many in the WG had already a problem with the fact that there are ResourceDescriptors and Artefacts. Your earlier recalling that ResourceDescriptor was an association class would actually be in favour of not introducing another one! To conclude, I'll re-state that I think the current PROF pattern is actually ok. The issues are the naming of the elements, and the problem of knowing how it aligns with dcat:Distribution (well, in fact as discussed earlier with @smrgeoinfo we may well drop the ambition to align with dcat:Distribution if we can't agree on it...) -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573#issuecomment-531954363 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 16 September 2019 20:54:55 UTC