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

Re: [dxwg] Best practice for a loosely-structured catalog

From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 10:38:43 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-403278530-1531046322-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@dr-shorthair, some questions:

1. You have statements like `dcterms:relation [      dcterms:identifier "isc2017.ttl" ;    ] ;`. I see this is a blank node, but I can't see what the referenced resource is or where it can be accessed. Should there not be a link to the file, rather than just the  identifier?
2. In the second example, I se you model this with a 'parent' dataset that has no distributions but links to parts which themselves are datasets. However, the part datasets are not 'real' datasets as they have no URI for themselves. The also have no metadata, just a distributions. Is the idea they 'inherit' metadata from the 'parent'?
3. In general, you work with an approach that only assigns a URI to the top-level dataset and uses blank nodes for everything else (part datasets, distributions, rights statements, contact points). I think it is good practice to assign URIs for all individuals. Maybe not for arbitrary time periods but everything else should be individually addressable and could be stored as such in a database. Also, some things might be reused locally (e.g. the CSIRO rights statement). But maybe the examples are a simplification and a real implementation would assign those URIs?

GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/253#issuecomment-403278530 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2018 10:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:45:00 UTC