W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > August 2018

RE: [dxwg] Links from DCAT draft to (DCAT 2014) rdf

From: <Peter.Winstanley@gov.scot>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 09:33:14 +0000
To: <sysbot+gh@w3.org>, <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BEA9D5BE2C1C76448E2955B1FD8769E101D37F549C@s0393g.scotland.gov.uk>
Re: Q1.  I don't see much point in RDF/XML if we have ttl.  I think that a diagram of the examples (just simple circles and arrows) could also be helpful if we are going to do any duplication of the representation of examples.  What do you think?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Browning via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org> 
Sent: 22 August 2018 08:59
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: [dxwg] Links from DCAT draft to (DCAT 2014) rdf 

davebrowning has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/dxwg:


== Links from DCAT draft to (DCAT 2014) rdf  == Looking at the editors draft, some (possibly all)  of the internal links in the vocabulary specification pick up old RDF.  Its most obvious where the RDF Property field contains something like `dcat:dataset` which takes you to what's basically a redirect page at https://www.w3.org/ns/dcat that then links to the 2014 ttl or rdf/xml...so you're no longer looking at the updated version.  By comparison, links to definitions in specifications like DCT take you from `dct:hasPart` direct to the ttl (even if the anchor syntax is a bit irrelevant). 

[There's a separate consistency issue - which is what I was trying to address - where we've mixed up links to the rdf with links within the document but that's comparatively minor - I'm fixing that on the back of existing actions]

I think there are two questions:

1. Do we want to persist the 2014 approach of an intermediate page which allows then points independently to the RDF?  That only makes sense to me if we plan to do both ttl and rdf/xml forms - I think we decided not to do that?
2. For Second public draft, what do we want to achieve?  We do have a link to the live version of the ttl in Abstract - which is good, but I don't think its adequate.  [We know nobody reads introductions, but people do read abstracts, I think.  Unfortunately its not always the same people who read the doc.....]


My instinct is that we should fix this so the links work but open to be persuaded...


Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/320 using your GitHub account

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

*******************************************************************************************************************************
This email has been received from an external party and has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. 
*******************************************************************************************************************************


********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return.

Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.


Tha am post-d seo (agus faidhle neo ceanglan còmhla ris) dhan neach neo luchd-ainmichte a-mhàin. Chan eil e ceadaichte a chleachdadh ann an dòigh sam bith, a’ toirt a-steach còraichean, foillseachadh neo sgaoileadh, gun chead. Ma ’s e is gun d’fhuair sibh seo gun fhiosd’, bu choir cur às dhan phost-d agus lethbhreac sam bith air an t-siostam agaibh agus fios a leigeil chun neach a sgaoil am post-d gun dàil.

Dh’fhaodadh gum bi teachdaireachd sam bith bho Riaghaltas na h-Alba air a chlàradh neo air a sgrùdadh airson dearbhadh gu bheil an siostam ag obair gu h-èifeachdach neo airson adhbhar laghail eile. Dh’fhaodadh nach  eil beachdan anns a’ phost-d seo co-ionann ri beachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba. 
**********************************************************************


Received on Monday, 27 August 2018 09:34:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:01 UTC