- From: Jakub Klímek via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:54:30 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@agbeltran Thanks for the example. This is exactly what I would not like to be allowed or encouraged by DCAT, as what you describe can be perfectly well represented as 3 datasets (each with a different temporal coverage and one distribution), and after the DCAT revision, hopefully, using a 4th dataset having these 3 as parts (i.e. dataset series). The issues that you describe, i.e. properties having `dcat:Distribution` as domain, I see as a natural consequence of insufficient metadata description, not something that should be supported, which would probably lead to further relaxation of the domains, and therefore greater mess in DCAT data. As I stated earlier, I do not see the value of allowing representation of "just a bag of files" and I would rather encourage publishers to describe the files properly rather than creating messy DCAT data. @dr-shorthair Regarding your usage of blank nodes, coming from the Linked Data community, I would discourage their usage. Simply everything should have an IRI, according to the basic Linked Data principles. No one can anticipate that there will be no interest to link to, e.g. parts of datasets (or datasets in a dataset series, which I think is the same thing). Furthermore, I would object to stating that dataset parts should inherit some properties from their parent dataset, as again this is messier to consume. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jakubklimek Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/253#issuecomment-404440434 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2018 08:54:33 UTC