- From: Bert Van Nuffelen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:19:34 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> its an example - conformsTo can have multiple values - i dont see the problem nor need to restrict (OGC 's own profile can do that restriction if it wants, not DCAT - thats the nature of profiles > > and the restriction can be oneOf not allOf I agree that a profile could make it own decisions, but it also may do it in such a way that it blocks usage of that profile. My example is that I have to comply to DCAT-AP HVD profile *AND* GeoDCAT profile. The way how the constraints are formulated do matter extremely here. ``` _:d1 dct:conformsTo ogc:a. _:d1 dct:conformsTo iso:b. ``` violates the expression that _the values must be from the OGC codelist_ Instead it should be e.g. formulated as such as _the recommended codelist is OGC codelist, but others are allowed_ (a more open formulation.) This is extremely important for those specifications that intend to be an intermediate layer between a real profile that is being used in a system and one that is providing guidelines for a community. In DCAT-AP (an intermediate layer) this is a constant attention point, sometimes successful, sometimes it can be improved. In my opion OGC:GeoDCAT is also layer in between, and not a final profile that systems are going to use. And therefore I draw attention to these formulations. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bertvannuffelen Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1435#issuecomment-1431629353 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2023 16:19:35 UTC