Re: [dxwg] Related vocabularies mapping [RVM]

> On 12 Mar 2018, at 22:13, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
> 
> @larsgsvensson asked "Can you expand a bit on VoID not being only for RDF? Given the [definition](https://www.w3.org/TR/void/#dataset <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.  
> 

In my opinion one of the good features of DCAT is the separation between dataset as an abstract entity and its concrete distribution. By allowing multiple distributions for a single dataset it seems to me that DCAT already assumes that the data are not expressed only in RDF.

> 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 <mailto:sysbot%2Bgh@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 <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88#issuecomment-372305849> using your GitHub account
>