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

On suggestion to use ext:concerns vs. rdfs:seeAlso #51

Open
schivmeister opened this issue Sep 2, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

On suggestion to use ext:concerns vs. rdfs:seeAlso #51

schivmeister opened this issue Sep 2, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
clarification required Further information is requested for closure

Comments

@schivmeister
Copy link
Collaborator

For the node ND-StrategicProcurementInformationLotResult we received the following feedback:

The Node is about Strategic procurement not just green procurement threfore the rdfs: see Also should be between LotResult and Strategic Procuement instead of rdfs: seeAlso we suggest using ext: concerns Strategic Prourement

We assume there is a suggestion to use a certain predicate ext:concerns in place of rdfs:seeAlso. However, that is arbitrary, non-standard and undocumented.

The initial suggestion of rdfs:seeAlso was brought up by @cristianvasquez and @csnyulas as it is built into the RDF-S vocabulary, so it has a sound basis.

We would like to know if this suggestion would still be considered valid, given the above.

@cristianvasquez
Copy link
Contributor

hello @csnyulas, what is this ext: prefix? Do you happen to have any more information?

It makes sense to use these temporary predicates if properly documented. The documentation can be a SHACL document, in line with #33.

@schivmeister
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We have no idea. It was mentioned in the feedback, quoted above. We were asked to file a ticket asking for clarification.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clarification required Further information is requested for closure
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants