Is use of Data Cube Vocabulary for an observation-less catalog considered harmful? from Ed Staub on 2014-11-13 (public-dwbp-wg@w3.org from November 2014)

From: Ed Staub <ed.staub@semanterra.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:11:10 -0500
To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002b01cffef7$dbeddd90$93c998b0$@staub@semanterra.org>

I am working on an ontology for public cataloging of data cubes that could
be an extension of the RDF Data Cube Vocabulary, where dimensions and
measures are provided, but no observations.  If successful, there could be a
lot of public instances of this around.

While AFAICT it is technically valid to extend the Data Cube Vocabulary in
this way, it seems like it may be in conflict with the intended use of the
vocabulary, and might lead to undesired behavior by tools that implicitly
expect instantiations of the Data Cube vocabulary to not be "empty suits" -
to contain the data that they describe.

Is this observation-less usage of the Data Cube Vocabulary for cataloging
advisable?

-Ed Staub

Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 08:40:06 UTC