Re: ISSUE-80: We need a definition of "dataset"

I am not against the definition of DCAT. What I am saying is that the
dataset to DCAT do not address multiple datasets with different
distributions that could be a bundle.

In your example, Phil, there is only one file, the zip one. And if you have
each one of the files with different distributions? If you are sure that
this case never will happened, if when you have multiple files they always
will be distributed in one single file, maybe the current definition of
DCAT could be sufficient.

For Ckan and DSPL, dataset is always the set of files.

I prefer to restrict the idea of dataset to a collection of resources (in
the sense of rdf resources). I do not like the idea of using dataset as a
collection of datasets. But we have to discuss and collect examples.

I think that this granularity is important. There would be metadata in each
of these levels.

Laufer

Em sábado, 8 de novembro de 2014, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> escreveu:

> I'm confident that DCAT supports this already. The DCAT definition does
> not say whether the collection of data is in a single file or multiple
> files since a dcat:Dataset is an abstract concept that may be accessible by
> a distribution.
>
> dcterms:hasPart and dcterms:isPartOf are probably useful here, and I'd
> want to use those at the Dataset level, not the distribution level,
> something like:
>
> <readings-2014-11-08T00:00> a dcat:Dataset;
>   dcterms:isPartOf <readings-2014-11-08> .
>
> <readings-2014-11-08T06:00> a dcat:Dataset;
>   dcterms:isPartOf <readings-2014-11-08> .
>
> <readings-2014-11-08T12:00> a dcat:Dataset;
>   dcterms:isPartOf <readings-2014-11-08> .
>
> <readings-2014-11-08T18:00> a dcat:Dataset;
>   dcterms:isPartOf <readings-2014-11-08> .
>
>
> <readings-2014-11-08> a dcat:Dataset;
>   dcterms:hasPart <readings-2014-11-08T00:00>;
>   dcterms:hasPart <readings-2014-11-08T06:00>;
>   dcterms:hasPart <readings-2014-11-08T12:00>;
>   dcterms:hasPart <readings-2014-11-08T18:00>;
>   dcat:distribution <readings-2014-11-08.zip> .
>
> <readings-2014-11-08.zip> a dcat:Distribution;
>   dcat:mediaType "application/zip" .
>
>
> The 4 timed readings and the collected readings for the day are all
> dcat:Datasets, i.e. they are all "A collection of data, published or
> curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or
> more formats."
>
> Would that work for you Laufer?
>
>
> On 07/11/2014 23:40, Laufer wrote:
>
>> I agree with you Phil. But as there are many different definitions of this
>> term being used, we have to assert the definition that we would accept.
>>
>> I think that we will also need to use a term to talk about bundles that
>> include multiple files, multiple datasets. Maybe container, package...
>>
>> As I understand, DCAT's definition of dataset does not include a dataset
>> as
>> a set of files, for example.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Laufer
>>
>> Em sexta-feira, 7 de novembro de 2014, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
>> escreveu:
>>
>>  I tried to word the issue relatively objectively just now in tracker,
>>> allowing for the possibility of the WG to come up with a definition of
>>> 'dataset' other than that in DCAT. More subjectively, I would personally
>>> be
>>> very opposed to any such redefinition unless there were very strong
>>> arguments for doing so.
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/11/2014 14:25, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue
>>> Tracker wrote:
>>>
>>>  ISSUE-80: We need a definition of "dataset"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/80
>>>>
>>>> Raised by:
>>>> On product:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Archer
>>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>>
>>> http://philarcher.org
>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> @philarcher1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .