Re: [dxwg] Rename Resource Descriptor class

Makx, We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do not consider those files "distributions" in the DCAT sense - for the reasons I have given above - and I also don't consider them "distributions" in the natural language sense since they are parts that make up a whole, not distributions of an existing set of data. They are different objects with different data content, albeit about the same conceptual thing. Some may actually be transformations of each other (e.g. the ODT and DOCX), and I think that is a special relationship that should be noted,  but others are independently created, and many have unique content. For these reasons, I see no reason to call them distributions, which might cause confusion with dcat:Distribution. They are better described, IMO, as they are in the profiles ontology as resources or objects with roles. The objects themselves _might_ be said to have distributions, and that would cover the transformed files, like ODT/DOCX/PDF if they aren't independently created, but we need to think about that more (profilesOnt doesn't get into that kind of detail or definition). In FRBR those would be different manifestations because items must be exact copies of each other, but [FaBio](https://sparontologies.github.io/fabio/current/fabio.html) treats different serializations or file formats as different items, which also makes sense. 

I'm going to try a different diagram style, one that is more "thing"-based than the ones we have now. I'll see if that can help clarify my thinking. It would help me to see some datasets that are defined in DCAT. I can find documents, but I'm not finding a way to look at the DCAT descriptions of catalogs and datasets and distributions. That would help me a lot, thanks.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573#issuecomment-439738957 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 00:10:54 UTC