Closed danielpeintner closed 5 years ago
There was a debate in TD telcos about this and no decision was taken, hence no relation in the ontology. @mariapoveda, @maximelefrancois86, how to deal with this issue?
At some point, there was the idea that properties differentiate from actions' input/output insofar that they represented schema instances. This view is not relevant anymore, after the discussion of #259 in which we established that an alignment ssn:Property
~ td:Property
was not a good choice. Today, I think we can add td:Property
< schema:DataSchema
, maybe in a separate file.
In my opinion the ontology does not need to include td:Property < schema:DataSchema in order to allow property instances to be also DataSchema instances, it is enough not making such classes disjoint.
The td:Property < schema:DataSchema could be added in a separate file as extension rather than part of the model.
Still, there is a arrow missing between property and DataSchema.
here is a similar issue about this https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/495 . we should wait until this issue is clarified.
see #509.
The TD spec states in Section 5.3.2 Property that
Looking at the Information Model and Figure 1 this seems not to be the case. The automatically generated figure does not show any relation.
@vcharpenay is this missing in the ontology?