Re: [dxwg] Rename Resource Descriptor class

@andrea-perego The problem with "implementation resource" is that not all of the resources are directly related to implementation, such as various explanatory documents for humans. You could argue that EVERYTHING aids implementation, but I think that many people will associate implementation with code. The problem with "profile distribution" is that distribution is well understood by DCAT users but the profile work here is not to be dependent on knowledge of DCAT. 

I still question whether an abstract layer is needed. I know that it is common to have them in OO design but this is a vocabulary, not code. As a vocabulary, it is to be at least in part human-facing. An abstract layer would need to be justified by a significant presence of one-to-many situations - that is, one resource description to many distributions. I don't think that is the case here. And as I've said above, it's generally a bad idea to have multiple versions of the same thing due to the need to keep them in sync.

Note: the one-to-many in FRBR - which some cite in relation to DCAT design - is a frequent case and thus is a viable design for library catalogs. But FRBR is not a good model for standards documents where precision and 'equivalence' matter. The "many" in FRBR can vary widely, creatively, such as translations of poetry, movies made from books, or entirely updated versions of textbooks. It's an entirely different use case. For profiles, even certain minor differences could result in a different profile, not a new distribution. If you have one profile with terms A, B, C, D and another with A, B, C, D, E you cannot use the same validation rules with both. Minor differences count.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573#issuecomment-439632128 using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 17 November 2018 17:12:10 UTC