-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Profiles extend or refine (UC 5.37) #216
Comments
I suggest that the relationship between a 'Profile' and its underlying standards is |
I agree that there may well be more than one standard that is behind the profile. dependsOn sounds okay, but I'd also be interested in hearing other options. I thought about "extends" but it could just as easily narrow, restrict or constrain. It's hard to come up with a word that conveys all of that. depends may win. |
Again, can we discuss and decide on the semantic definition of a property before deciding on what the URI is? |
Why don’t we just use prov:wasDerivedFrom? That property indicates non-exclusive dependence so would fully cover dependsOn (or dependedOn at time of creation) |
@nicholascar The definition of |
I am probably over-complicating the issue, but I wonder if we want to distinguish between the different type of dependences in order to make smarter the profile negotiation. I am thinking about a generic dependency property ( e.g., dependsOn suggested by Simon @dr-shorthair), and some specialized dependsOn subproperties to indicate specific kind of dependency in the context of Profiling (e.g., I do not know .. extend, restrict)? At least a property representing "subtype polymorphism" to help to figure out the compatibility among profiles which is necessarily expressed by the more generic dependency relation. |
@makxdekkers Yes, that's what I meant. I admit that |
I also don't like discussing the specific property to use, before agreeing on what is meant precisely. But in this case I agree that we need a sort of derivation property, and |
Sorry - it appears I hijacked this issue to discuss something related (cardinality), when @kcoyle meant for us to be discussing 'extend or refine' - i.e. is extension acceptable as well as refinement? |
@rob-metalinkage says that |
IMHO profileOf is potentially a subproperty of prov:wasDerivedFrom making it so makes profiledesc dependent on prov (discoverable via owl:includes so we dont need to make this explict?) for example, a profile V2 that fixes a bug in V1 was derivedFrom V1, but is not a profileOf V1 so, please leave profileOf with its explicit semantics that profiles only restrict dct:Standards in conformant ways. Happy to model the other relationships more with prov: however. Suggest not overloading profiledesc with a separate versioning model however. Getting Makx's insight into the DCAT-AP governance and maintenance processes and history will be useful to see if there really are any prov: specialisations profiles uniquely need. |
agree: we are talking about a sub-property of After a couple of days with @danbri reminding us to think of the effect of the surface syntax on adoption, I'd recommend new properties in a single namespace, even if they are axiomatically linked in the background to standards like PROV. It is helpful to focus on the instance data, and for that to be clear and uncluttered. This is particularly if we anticipate use of, and maybe a run-time choice of, multiple different technologies to specify it (RDFS, OWL, SHACL, ShEx, JSON-schema). |
Sorry for jumping in late, but I share @makxdekkers's concerns about using BTW, VOAF has a property
|
+1 to @andre-perego As noted by Lars's mail, @nicholascar: How to generalize I would suggest to consider the
I guess it is worth to take a look and align to such sub-properties, also to avoid reinventing relations that are somehow already identified in the linked data community. |
Discussions about |
Profiles can extend other vocabularies or profiles, or can be refinements of other vocabularies or profiles (UC 5.37)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: