Skip to content
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

Replace isInheritedFrom with a subproperty of rdfs:isDefinedBy #18

Open
rob-metalinkage opened this issue Mar 24, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Comments

@rob-metalinkage
Copy link
Contributor

Proposal: replace isInhertiedFrom with a more general property that allows any ResourceDescriptor to directly indicate the Profile that defines the ResourceRole of this resource.

@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor

from @rob-metalinkage:

The rationale for a subproperty is that we can then add a property chain axiom to clarify the intent.

:specifiedBy rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
    rdfs:domain :ResourceDescriptor ;
    rdfs:range dct:Standard ;
    skos:definition "The base specification that defines the role of the related resource" ;
    skos:usageNote "This property allows a client to determine which base specification declared 
                   the requirement or other role for this particular resource, allowing 
                   implementations to flatten inheritance hierarchies for clients do not need 
                   to traverse a graph to locate all requirements. Implementations are responsible 
                   for determining if and how to use this property, and may choose some appropriate 
                   subset of resources. This property provides an optional inverse for the property
                   hasResource"@en ;
    owl:propertyChain ( 
        :specifiedBy :hasResource 
    ) ;
    rdfs:label "specified by" .

@aisaac
Copy link
Contributor

aisaac commented Mar 21, 2020

In the discussion on w3c/dxwg#857 @nicholascar detailed the PROF semantics for the inheritance link (w3c/dxwg#857 (comment)) .

But if that definition is still up-to-date, I find it has inconsistencies, which should probably be addressed here. More precisely, there's a contradiction between three elements:

  • the definition of the property "This property indicates a Resource Descriptor described by this Profile’s base specification"
  • the formal rdfs:range of the property (apparently set to Profile, not to Resource Descriptor as the definition indicates)
  • the claim in the comment, which says "A profile's ResourceDescriptor instances can be inherited from anything (Profiles/Specifications) that this profile profiles directly or indirectly."

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants