W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > June 2015

Re: reviewing the BP doc

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:36:13 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+pXJih9hJyx_ak1FHa_v_EPNYgVv7-dxMPhqgT5+9VwJfLy1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Makx,

I am really confused now.

In what moment of this discussion I proposed to change this model?

My participation in this post was motivated exactly because I have
identified a proposal to change that model and I expressed my opinion to
contribute.

And, again, the word abstract was not introduced by me in this post. And
this word was the main reason for my opinion. I commented to take care
using the words abstract and instance.

I also agree that the group don't have to change the DCAT model (we don't
have time to that), but I don't see any problem If someone in the group
identifiy things missing in that model, and we discuss and even decide to
insert a note in our document about this.

But as all the things in the group, is a matter of proposals and votings.

Laufer



Em terça-feira, 30 de junho de 2015, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
escreveu:

> Laufer,
>
>
>
> Let’s not use words like ‘abstract things’ because we might have different
> ideas what that phrase means.
>
>
>
> What is clear is that dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution are classes in
> the DCAT model. DCAT defines what they are and how they are related. DCAT
> is also clear about how those classes relate to the physical data files or
> to the endpoints that give access to the actual data.
>
>
>
> I think we should restrict the discussion to that model. If not, we might
> end up developing a different model, and I am not sure that this group
> really wants to go there.
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Laufer [mailto:laufer@globo.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','laufer@globo.com');>]
> *Sent:* 29 June 2015 22:30
> *To:* Makx Dekkers
> *Cc:* Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: reviewing the BP doc
>
>
>
> Ok, Makx.
>
> I know this DCAT diagram. I am comfortable with this. And in this model,
> both Datasets and Distributions are not abstract things.
> What it is not comfortable to me is to consider that a Dataset is an
> abstract thing.
>
> Laufer
>
>
>
> 2015-06-29 16:04 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mail@makxdekkers.com');>>:
>
> Laufer,
>
>
>
> Ø  I think we have to be carefull about using the words abstract and
> instance.
>
>
>
> Agree. Let’s not use those words.
>
>
>
> Ø  From the discussions, it seems to me that the Dataset is an abstract
> thing with instances that are the distributions.
>
> Ø  This is what I have understood from the posts from Bernadette and from
> you. And (until now) I do not agree with this.
>
>
>
> This is **not** what I have argued. Please look at the diagram and
> examples in section 4 of DCAT
> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#vocabulary-overview. That section gives
> an overview of the modelling approach of DCAT. I would agree that there are
> many other ways you could model this space, but DCAT is just what it is.
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 12:36:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 30 June 2015 12:36:42 UTC