ro-crate
ro-crate copied to clipboard
ResearchObject
Soften Profile inheritence rules
In some cases, such as Workflow Run Crate there are multiple profiles that are related with inheritance.
There are also less strict inheritance profiles such as https://trefx.uk/trusted-wfrun-crate/0.3/
This section now makes it softer how to list multiple profiles, they are suggestions rather than enforcing any hierarchy.
Decision 2024-04-11: Not do formal inheritance system at RO-Crate level yet before we have tried out how it works with actual implementations (e.g. SHACL, Crate-O modes) -- then facilitate them.
I have finally managed to tidy up the profile section.
Changes:
- Merged to latest master (but pending #296 with retrieval section moved out from here)
- Use only
rdfs:Classandrdf:Property, documented as Schema.org style schemas - Inheritance across profiles now only "Multiple Profiles" as suggestions of conformance only
- Renamed section "Shared contextual entities from a Profile Crate"
- Examples expanded following @simleo's suggestion
Suggestion in call 2024-04-25 @CaroleGoble was to also look at Delegation pattern:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegation_pattern
- https://refactoring.guru/replace-delegation-with-inheritance
- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/832536/when-to-use-delegation-instead-of-inheritance
- https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/replace-inheritance-with-delegation.html
In a sense we use delegation pattern in https://trefx.uk/5s-crate/0.4/#referencing-a-workflow-crate as instead of subclassing Workflow RO-Crate, it references the Workflow RO-Crate by URL -- one crate to another. I've documented this pattern in #296.
This would make the resulting 5s-crate as Workflow Run Crate not conform to any strict inheritance rules, as it would not have the usual ComputationalWorkflow etc. and so should not itself declare conformsTo the Workflow RO-Crate (which we would have to then make Workflow RO-Crate indirection also be a workflow language!).
Note a side issue: at the moment that 5s-crate is in that case purposefully ignoring the MUST of conformsTo requirements -- we can argue over that separately!
