- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 05:46:16 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
There are a few separate concerns here - the first is that the specification needs to define its own conformance rules - it may for example provide a series of tests that must be passed. Neither DCAT (nor PROF) should attempt to over-define this. Secondly, if "conformsTo" = "may nearly conform to" then its impossible to tell how near, and the statement wont have much value - so a different predicate with those explicit semantics should be created if necessary. Thirdly, in the case of a "near miss" you can refactor your profile hierarchy to exactly match your intent. You could define a profile that is an effective subset, then declare both the original and your slightly deviant profile to both profile this super-profile. DCAT prof:isProfileOf myDCAT-subset, myDCAT-inspired-model prof:isProfileOf myDCAT-subset. These statements only need to exist within your own domain (i.e. can be in a separate alignment ontology mapping DCAT. How the subset is expressed is up to you - chose the constraint language of your choise, e.g. SHACL - but the extent of overlap is now explicitly modelled and the semantics of dcterms:conformsTo is preserved. The other choice is to somehow tell the user that your idea of "conformance" doenst mean the same as DCAT's - this is much trickier to imagine a canonical mechanism to achieve this. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/430#issuecomment-784797731 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2021 05:46:18 UTC