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

Domain of dcat:hadRole #640

Closed
andrea-perego opened this issue Jan 7, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

Domain of dcat:hadRole #640

andrea-perego opened this issue Jan 7, 2019 · 5 comments
Milestone

Comments

@andrea-perego
Copy link
Contributor

@dr-shorthair , I see that the domain of dcat:hadRole is prov:Influence, although in the examples we have it is always related to the "influence of an agent" (which should correspond to prov:AgentInfluence).

I guess this is meant to complement what not covered by prov:hadRole (#79 (comment)). But I wonder whether in the note to that property it may be worth making it explicit, and saying that, in the framework of DCAT, it is supposed to be used with prov:Attribution (a subclass of prov:Influence via prov:AgentInfluence), as also explained in Section "Attribution Roles".

Also, IMO it would be useful to add a link to Section "Attribution Roles", which provides examples on how to use it.

If this makes sense, I can take care of creating the relevant PR.

@dr-shorthair
Copy link
Contributor

I'm also anticipating the need to assign roles to dataset-dataset relations, and don't want to have to create yetanother predicate for that case.
I started the work here: #613

Dataset-dataset relations are not attributions or generations, but something else,
I think Influence is the most general case from the PROV-O ontology, though maybe it is still too restricted as it is only concerned with causal relationships?

@dr-shorthair
Copy link
Contributor

In https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/651/files#diff-3536ecfed0957ecf71ed071887330f5a I propose that the domain of dcat:hadRole be the union of prov:Attribution and dcat:Relationship.

@davebrowning
Copy link
Contributor

Above proposal merged in #651

@davebrowning
Copy link
Contributor

@andrea-perego - does the current document now address your original concerns, or is there more to be done here?

@davebrowning davebrowning added the due for closing Issue that is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days label Jan 30, 2019
@andrea-perego
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, thanks.

@davebrowning davebrowning removed the due for closing Issue that is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days label Feb 1, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants