Re: [dxwg] Related vocabularies mapping [RVM]

@larsgsvensson asked "Can you expand a bit on VoID not being only for RDF?
Given the [definition](https://www.w3.org/TR/void/#dataset) "A dataset is a
set of RDF triples that are published, maintained or aggregated by a single
provider", I'd say that VoID is _only_ about RDF triples..."

Several years ago I had a conversation with one of the authors Richard
Cygniak (it was when I was at CSIRO and I dont have access to the mail
thread any more).

My Use Case was describing datasets that are not _currently_ published as
RDF, but that in an evolving Linked Data environment would ideally be, so
we could kick start the process of providing fine grained semantics about
data and services. I asked whether there is a need for a dataset to be
stored as RDF - and if merely capable of being expressed as RDF was
sufficient. From memory Richard C confirmed that this was a reasonable
interpretation.

Given pretty much all the metadata in Void is optional, there is no problem
with describing TechnicalFeatures that relate to non RDF access methods or
distributions, and leaving out the RDF specific sparqlEndpoint.

Only properties like void:vocabulary, classPartition etc reference IRI
identifiers, and hence a contract around the RDF model that would be
assumed.

(QB helps resolve the shortfall, but void:vocabulary is not actually that
useful anyway as discussed above). so the same issues apply to how mappings
from IRI based identifiers to local identifiers (e.g. column names in a
spreadsheet)  is the one mechanism we need to think about for all these
cases.





On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 at 00:17 Vladimir Alexiev via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
wrote:

> @dr-shorthair I agree that QB can be used to represent dataset statistics.
> It's important not to muddy the waters by confusing:
> - the use of DCAT to represent *stats datasets* (eg StatDCAT-AP)
> - vs the use of QB to represent *dataset stats*
>
> > Challenge... how the rdf:Property object described using QB is mapped to
> the structure of a dataset
> - Agree: as #161 says "The real challenge is how to do it for other
> datasets."
>
> But I also see other challenges:
> - how to harmonize this "DCAT using QB" with VOID because VOID is very
> prevalent for RDF datasets
> - how to capture specific subsets, eg (see #161) "startup companies in
> Italy". AFAIK VOID can't express this (class/property partitions don't fix
> a property **value**) but maybe some VOID extensions can. And I think that
> qb:DSDs/slices can express it
>
> > for those instances such as spreadsheets etc where elements do not
> natively have URI names.
>
> But see CSVW. The future DCAT should interplay with such RDFization
> standards...
>
>
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by VladimirAlexiev
> Please view or discuss this issue at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88#issuecomment-372305849 using your
> GitHub account
>
>