- From: Matthew Rawlings via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 01:42:44 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly about the diagram. My personal experience of implementing DCAT v2 is that the use of UML notation in Figure 1 reinforced the incorrect assumption of OOP semantics. Today, I had the use of UML notation in that diagram quoted to me as justifying assuming OOP semantics. That diagram uses UML Generalization to represent SubClassOf, which is conflating implementation inheritance with sub typing. The [Note](https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/#dcat-scope) say it "...uses UML-style class notation...", yet based on the [UML Specification](https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDF), I believe that the most apt UML Relationship is not UML Generalization, but is instead UML Substitution. If UML style notation is to be used, then it should be correct UML style notation. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rawmatt Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1228#issuecomment-606976523 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2020 01:42:46 UTC