Since each dpv-skos:Concept also has an equivalent dpv-owl:Class, I was wondering whether this can be considered as good practice? See e.g. https://w3id.org/dpv/dpv-skos#ConsentRequested versus https://w3id.org/dpv/dpv-owl#ConsentRequested.
Notice also that dpvo:hasConsentStatus has dpvo:ConsentStatus as range and not dpvs:ConsentStatus.
DPV is serialized in both OWL as well as SKOS.
OSLO Consent is currently mixing the use of both serializations by using
dpv-owlproperties but recommendingdpv-skosas the value for those properties. See e.g. https://purl.eu/doc/applicationprofile/consent/kandidaatstandaard/2022-11-01/index_en.html#Consent%3AhasConsentStatusSince each
dpv-skos:Conceptalso has an equivalentdpv-owl:Class, I was wondering whether this can be considered as good practice? See e.g.https://w3id.org/dpv/dpv-skos#ConsentRequestedversushttps://w3id.org/dpv/dpv-owl#ConsentRequested.Notice also that
dpvo:hasConsentStatushasdpvo:ConsentStatusas range and notdpvs:ConsentStatus.