W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Using schema.org Dataset metadata properties

From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:26:08 +0300
Message-ID: <CANaM+WHudsnpxSzYL8dHk-rOXd-rXHfq9hebREb21JgTGUREoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Jeni, Ivan, all,

I'm not quite sure I understand the argument. Wouldn't adopting DC
terms have the exact same effect, since dcterms:publisher is an object
property?

Best,
stasinos


On 15 September 2014 20:57, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> Ivan,
>
> Given that we’re adopting JSON-LD for the metadata file, anyone *can* use any vocabulary. I was thinking that we should including the binding of ‘dc’ to the Dublin Core namespace so that people can easily add metadata in that scheme if they want to.
>
> I think there is huge value in having a predictable structure to metadata, as it helps with validation, display and conversion. Adopting JSON-LD in effect enforces a particular structure, eg saying that “publisher” must look like:
>
>   “publisher”: {
>     “@id”: "http://www.hefce.ac.uk/“,
>     “name": "Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)"
>   }
>
> or
>
>   “publisher”: "http://www.hefce.ac.uk/“
>
> and not
>
>   “publisher”: "Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)"
>
> Adopting schema.org normatively would mean saying that “publisher” means what it means in schema.org, which I think is what we would want to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeni
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Reply: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>>
> Date: 14 September 2014 at 08:07:03
> To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>>
> Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>>
> Subject:  Re: Using schema.org Dataset metadata properties
>
>> I have a meta-question on this. Is the list of terms listed in the document normative or
>> informative? The current document does not make a difference (ie, by default, it is normative,
>> including the references), but I presume this is simply because we never asked ourselves
>> the question.
>>
>> At the moment, the text says:
>>
>> [[[
>> Descriptions may contain any properties defined by [DC-TERMS] to describe the table.
>> This specification does not define any application behaviour associated with these
>> properties being present, except that validation of metadata files must check that,
>> if they are present, they adhere to the syntax defined here.
>> ]]]
>>
>> This at first suggests that the [Dublin Core] vocabulary is informative (and optional)
>> but then it mandates specific value syntax for some of the properties when validating.
>> I think it could be debated whether this additional validation requirement actually
>> makes the reference normative, but it is not clear. I guess the question is whether we
>> will have a notion of conforming metadata, of a possible metadata validator, and what
>> they are supposed to exactly do.
>>
>> Why is this question relevant? Because if the whole section is normative than we MUST
>> make a choice on whether, for a specific goal, we choose DCTERM or schema. If it is informative,
>> there is no problem referring to both and let the end user decide (and, actually, the exact
>> value syntax issue could also be removed simply referring to the definition of these
>> terms by DCMI and schema.org, respectively.)
>>
>> (There is also an editorial/W3C issue. There are fairly stringent rules on whether we
>> can refer, _normatively_, to an external document. While this is not a problem with DCTERM,
>> this has not yet done before for schema.org, and it may lead to some discussions...)
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Sep 2014, at 18:28 , Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In the current metadata document here:
>> >
>> > http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/#common-properties
>> >
>> > the spec maps adopts the list of Dublin Core properties for describing tables etc. As
>> ISSUE 6 says, this might not be the right choice: there might be other standard vocabularies
>> that should be used instead or as well.
>> >
>> > On the call this week, Dan suggested using schema.org instead, namely the properties
>> on Dataset here:
>> >
>> > http://schema.org/Dataset
>> >
>> > The properties there are informed by DCAT which itself was informed by Dublin Core.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > Jeni
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: CSV on the Web Working Group Issue Tracker
>> > Reply: CSV on the Web Working Group >
>> > Date: 10 September 2014 at 13:23:37
>> > To: jeni@jenitennison.com >
>> > Subject: ACTION-26: Write to mailing list re using schema.org rather than dublin core
>> for metadata about csv files, then binding decision on following telcon (CSV on the Web
>> Working Group)
>> >
>> >> ACTION-26: Write to mailing list re using schema.org rather than dublin core for metadata
>> >> about csv files, then binding decision on following telcon (CSV on the Web Working
>> Group)
>> >>
>> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/track/actions/26
>> >>
>> >> On: Jeni Tennison
>> >> Due: 2014-09-17
>> >>
>> >> If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please update your
>> >> settings at:
>> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/track/users/33715#settings
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeni Tennison
>> > http://www.jenitennison.com/
>> >
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 02:26:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:41 UTC