- From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:13:36 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@agbeltran wrote > What do you think? I like it. The only doubt is about the part "if they want to use the new features." Let's consider an existing implementation in which a SPARQL endpoint is described in the old fashion DCAT style as embedded in a distribution instead of the DCAT 2 data service. My opinion is that, in cases like the above, we should encourage to follow DCAT2 and then recommend to upgrade to DCAT 2 data service, while the sentence seems to leave this slightly open. I guess that being DCAT 2014 not obsolete, the user can decide anyway not to stick to DCAT 2014, but he/she should be aware that this comes at the cost of being uncompliant with DCAT2. Am I too restrictive? Perhaps we might change "if they want to use the new feature." in "if they _need_ to use the new features."? -- GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1177#issuecomment-563441747 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 9 December 2019 21:13:37 UTC