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

Re: Fwd: Re: Reusing DCAT namespace for DWBP vocabs

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:05:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jjuk9VMAaVGtVcGjVch80ZK2e+YbPPKDT52HWX2gLKDsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

While we didn't have a formal meeting today, I greatly appreciate the time
being able to catch up with you.  Regarding the DCAT namespace, I do agree
that it makes the most sense to just stick with our original plan to use
our own vocabulary namespaces rather than attempting to reuse or
concatenate anything onto DCAT.

I think there was a resolution to use the DCAT namespace at least for the
DUV in the F2F meeting, This is probably something that our WG may need to
follow up with at some point to document our current direction.

Have a great weekend,

Eric S

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> 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, 16 October 2015 14:06:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 16 October 2015 14:06:22 UTC