dcat:distribution - check constraints

[dr-shorthair]

In DCAT v1 the property dcat:distribution is axiomatized

dcat:distribution
  rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
  rdfs:domain dcat:Dataset ;
  rdfs:range dcat:Distribution ;
.

1. Verify that the range is appropriate and necessary
2. Verify that the domain is appropriate and necessary (see Review global domain axioms on dcat properties #110)
3. Consider whether any guarded constraints (using owl:Restriction) should be introduced (see Use owl:Restriction constraints to bind DC properties to DCAT classes  #105)

[makxdekkers]

I would vote to keep the domain and range here -- this property is one of the properties that are part of the backbone structure of DCAT:
Catalog > dataset > Dataset > distribution > Distribution

[dr-shorthair]

Do we need an inverse property here - to allow a distro to point to the dataset that it purports to instantiate?

[dr-shorthair]

In this case I think an inverse property makes sense.
A Distro will usually know which Dataset that it is related to.

Otherwise, Makx makes a compelling case for retaining domain and range.

[akuckartz]

No inverse properties please. They are not necessary. But that probably should better be discussed in a separate issue.

[dr-shorthair]

Discussion on inverse of dcat:distribution moved to #166

[dr-shorthair]

+1 to no change

[dr-shorthair]

https://www.w3.org/2018/03/21-dxwgdcat-minutes
resolved: no change to domain/range of dcat:distribution