Ambiguous relationship in Figure 1

[kamhayfung]

In 6 Figure 1 (https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profilesont/#conceptualmodel), what is “[0]” in “is profile of [0]” – between “Base Specification” and “dct:Standard” - referring to? Please clarify.

[nicholascar]

Addressed in 2PWD with Base Specification removed

[nicholascar]

@kamhayfung please see the updated spec: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/prof-3PWD-candidate/prof/

[nicholascar]

@kamhayfung please now see the Editor's Draft at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/prof/ and respond here so we know what you think of the change.

[kamhayfung]

They look much clearer in Figs 2-11 (excl 4). Nice work.

Here are some feedback:

dct:conformsTo
In Figure 2, "dct:confromsTo" should be "dct:conformsTo".
In Figure 11, both "dct:conformsTo" and "conforms to" appear. Do they mean the same thing?

dct:format
It inconsistently appears in many forms, e.g.

• "dct:format" (Figure 2)
• "has format" (Figure 3)
• "format" (Figure 7)

Please cross check all the diagrams and use the single form.

"dct:hasFormat", in Dublin Core (https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasFormat) reads better as a complete sentence in the unidirectional relationship
A--dct:hasFormat-->B than A--dct:format-->B.
However, "dct:hasFormat" seems to have a slightly different meaning.

Redundant Legends
It seems that Figures 12-17 still have the legends which are now available in Figure 1. They can be removed.

[kcoyle]

dct:hasFormat is deceptively named. The definition is:

"A related resource that is substantially the same as the pre-existing described resource, but in another format."

It would be more intuitive if it was "hasAnotherFormat" and the accidental pairing of dct:format and dct:hasFormat undoubtedly leads to quite a bit of confusion.

Since we don't have an example of how this is to be used, I can't tell if the object/value is supposed to be a URL pointing to the alternate-format file (which is what makes sense to me), or if the object is to be a format type (I don't see how that would be useful).

In any case I am pretty sure that the prof vocabulary is correct in using dct:format only.

[nicholascar]

I have attempted to address all points raised here in #687 (comment) in PR 1091.

You will see there that the commits deal with:

1. Figs 12 - 17 legends removal
2. inconsistent dct:conformsTo & "conforms to" (all moved to dct:conformsTo)
3. inconsistent dct:format & "conforms to" (all moved to dct:format)

...and one or two other typos.

As per @kcoyle's comment above: we shouldn't be using dct:hasFormat anywhere.