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

To what extent should gist be self-contained, to what extent do we want to invoke external terms (e.g., dcterms, skos) #161

Closed
rjyounes opened this issue Jan 30, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@rjyounes
Copy link
Collaborator

See issue #155.

@rjyounes rjyounes changed the title To what extent do we want to use external ontologies rather than defining new gist terms? To what extent should gist be self-contained, to what extent can it rely on external terms? Jan 30, 2020
@rjyounes rjyounes changed the title To what extent should gist be self-contained, to what extent can it rely on external terms? To what extent should gist be self-contained, to what extent do we want to invoke external terms (e.g., dcterms, skos) Aug 13, 2020
@rjyounes
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We don't want to use RDF or RDFS vocabularies - see issue #389. This eliminates dcterms but not SKOS.

@uscholdm
Copy link
Contributor

@rjyounes
DECISION: we decided to have SKOS stubs in gist to maintain DL-compliance.
I cannot find just the right issue to fere to, but these links are relevant. #934
#216

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