- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:36:38 +0200
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Hi, Originally I was rather in favour of adding the DQV and DQV elements to DCAT. But I'm now looking the minutes of last week's discussion that I've missed, especially Phil's point "we can edit the /ns doc (but not /TR/vocab-dcat/)". To me, this obliterates a lot of the pros for data publishers who's have to use the 'combined' vocabulary. So I'd agree with Richard and Makx. Cheers, Antoine On 10/7/15 3:01 PM, Makx Dekkers wrote: > I agree with Richard. Makx > > Op 7 okt. 2015 2:38 PM schreef "Deirdre Lee" <deirdre@derilinx.com <mailto:deirdre@derilinx.com>>: > > 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 Friday, 9 October 2015 07:37:11 UTC