Re: [dxwg] definition expressed machine readible (#1255)

Great discussion! It would be fantastic if there was a greater alignment between the human readable definitions and the formal machine readable expressions. It would force knowledge engineers to consider the potential of resuse of a new element and not to add restrictions unless deemed necessary for it interpretation - but also the opposite, that is, making sure that the defining characteristics are indeed present in the definition for narrowing the number of instances down to match the exact set that was intended.

In the case of the DCAT definition, it seems the minimal semantic commitment would more or less be the abstract "a collection of data"  possibly adding "curated or published" in the scope of DCAT or even the definition proposed in [this issue ](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1195).
Indeed inserting a "generally" or a "typically" in the sentence would give the users an idea of common use cases and further profiling. However I would argue stongly against making such notes part of the definition as they are supplementary and should not be part of the formal machine readable definition. Rather such notes should be added as (usage) notes, comments, examples keeping the definitions consise, precise and consistant.


> A definition is a single phrase that can replace the term wherever used. It does not start with an article (e.g. “a”, “the”) or end with a full-stop. It does not take the form of, or contain, a requirement or recommendation. Additional information can be included in a Note to entry or an Example. 

Ref: ISO on definitions: https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/how-to-write-standards.pdf

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aidig
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1255#issuecomment-696537153 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2020 06:37:53 UTC