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

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

From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 02:46:59 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-404709391-1531450013-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@jakubklimek I understand your concern about the blank nodes. In this issue I was tackling a separate question: the lack of guidance on how to represent the information in many existing catalogs, and the consequent mis-use of the `dcat:distribution` property. The examples above are merely concerned with getting the modeling right. The key point is to propose that `dct:hasPart` relationships should be to other _datasets_, not to _distributions_. 

Best practice would certainly be to identify and describe them in their own right. However, as we have no more information available in the catalog that I was quoting from, I was just making sure that the model was correct first. 

We have already heard that existing catalogs commonly use blank nodes for `Distributions`. So we should probably tackle recommendations around blank nodes generally in a separate issue. Perhaps you can create that? 

GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/253#issuecomment-404709391 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 13 July 2018 02:47:00 UTC

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