-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
What to do with axioms in the DCAT 3 RDF serializations? #1402
Comments
Considering the discussions we had in the last DCAT meeting and the overall reluctance to add constraining in the DCAT RDF formalization. Any reactions to my provocation? If not, I will prepare a PR. |
+1 from me. |
Yeah - too many axioms. That detail should be left to community profiles, probably formalized as shapes (SHACL and ShEX) rather than RDFS/OWL. |
Perhaps a 'recommended set' of axioms (shapes?) could be set in a separate module, to promote some level of consistency? A profile could choose to use (import) them or not. |
We removed the axioms in the DCAT 3 RDFs similarly to DCAT 2.
That could be an option, but at the same time, I think having further resources might be a source of confusion on what is the real expectation. Can we close this issue? |
+1 from me. |
We discussed dropping some axioms from the DCAT 2 RDF serialization as they were not explicitly mentioned in the DCAT 2 REC. See #PR #1401 for the list of axioms.
How to deal with the same axioms in dcat 3. We might either a) delete the above axioms or b) add them in the DCAT 3 HTML specification and keep it in the RDF serialization.
Some of the above axioms relate to the discussion in separate issues, e.g., Axiom 2 in #1242.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: