MOD3.0 Design issue #3: What class (outside of DCAT) can we consider a Semantic Artefact specialize?

[jonquet]

• Properties of all the classes becomes “available” to describe SemanticArtefact
• We need to be sure the logics stays right

Proposition 1:

• SA specializes all the pre-existing semantic objects (e.g., owl:ontology) as it was done in MOD1.4 with the object mod:Ontology.
  => All the properties of all the objects are available.

Proposition 2:

• SA specializes even more pre-existing semantic objects but not the pre-existing ones that were representing a type of SA (owl:Ontology, skos:ConceptScheme, voaf:Vocabulary)

Proposition 2-bis:

• The same than 2 but SA supersedes the pre-existing ones.

[jonquet]

Properties available from other standard vocabularies

[agbeltran]

The conclusion around this design issue considered:
mod:SemanticArtefact must not specialise owl:Ontology or rdfs:Resource
Any other specialisation, when considering other vocabularies, should be discussed as part of an MOD profile and/or MOD mappings with other vocabularies, rather than being part of MOD definitions.