- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 23:58:00 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
The OGC uses the "double typing" - or polymorphic approach because every Concept is assumed to have one or more underlying descriptive models which may or may not be available. We choose to use owl:Class as the canonical model form for authoritative descriptive models (and avoid messy class equivalence) - so equivalent classes will need their own URIs and alignments. So, at this stage I think the question is, as originally stated, what is the appropriate alignment predicate between these different artefacts? The related question is how should these be cited (referenced) by external systems. I think ISO concept register needs to be treated as metadata objects describing the normative objects - and the normative objects should support content-negotiation to provide machine readable artefacts, and hence be the correct things to cite in other machine readable contexts, however the concept register may be the correct thing to cite for human readable context... how to best describe this meta model and architectural assumption - or what alternatives make sense? -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1372#issuecomment-1309559124 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2022 23:58:01 UTC