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

Re: Re: Reusing DCAT namespace for DWBP vocabs

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:20:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jhDsmfUKJPo_zO_NgJuSSohgVRDYHQ7Yh1csszXuGB0Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Deidre thanks for sharing Richard thoughts.

The rationale for wanting to use the dcat namespace was to closely
correlate new vocabularies that were viewed as extensions of the
dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution.  I was thinking after our F2F meetings
how other vocabularies handled perhaps similar circumstances.  Dublin core
[1] accommodates two namespaces to not break the previously defined
vocabulary and provide extended in the new vocabulary.

I'm wondering if instead of using:
* http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat# (dcat:) for the Dataset Usage Vocabulary
* use something like http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat/usage# (dcatu:)

This would achieve from the human perspective loose association with dcat
without causing possible confusion from someone looking for usage
terminology in the DCAT specification.

Eric S

[1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/FAQ/DC_and_DCTERMS_Namespaces

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Richard for providing feedback on the reuse of DCAT ns for DQV
> and DUV:
> --------------------------
> Hi Dee,
> My view is that different vocabularies should have different namespaces.
> Having some terms in a namespace governed by one document and then other
> terms in the same namespace governed by a different document is confusing
> and counter-intuitive. It makes future maintenance harder, as several
> documents with complex interrelationships would be affected.
> The strongest argument for putting everything into one namespace is, I
> suppose, convenience for data publishers. They wouldn’t have to remember
> which term is in which namespace. But this ship has sailed a long time ago.
> In RDF, we have to live with terms being scattered over different
> namespaces. Even when just using plain DCAT, one has to use terms in the DC
> and SKOS namespaces.
> That being said, it’s the WG’s decision and not Fadi’s or mine, and I
> don’t believe there’s any rule against adding terms to a REC-defined
> namespace using a NOTE.
> Please feel free to forward this message to the list or share its contents
> in whatever way you see fit.
> All the best,
> Richard
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 15:21:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 October 2015 15:21:23 UTC