Re: [dcat] Tomorrow's agenda

> Unfortunately I've got another meeting conflict this week, so regrets
> again for today. I've included some notes below, which may or may not
> be of some use.

I'm at risk; not sure if I can escape my meetings in DC today.  I also
haven't had a chance to look at these documents, so I might not be able
to contribute much anyway.

I would suggest trying to figure out how close we are to publishing
these documents at W3C working drafts.  I'd suggest the right question
there is whether the documents might mislead anyone about the design;
they should convey the consensus design where there there is one, but
(as editors notes pointing to ISSUES) highlight any point where there is
disagreement or uncertainty or an open question.

     -- Sandro

> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote
> :
> 
> > == Use Cases and Requirements ==
> >
> > * See
> > http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Data_Catalog_Vocabulary/Use_Cases_and_Requireme
> nts
> > * Can we declare this finished?
> 
> I think it looks good, nice work!
> 
> > == Vocabulary Reference ==
> >
> > * See
> > http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Data_Catalog_Vocabulary/Vocabulary_Reference
> > * Review current state
> 
> I wonder if it is worthwhile acknowledging (at least to ourselves)
> that the ranges of dct:publisher, dct:accrualPeriodicity, dct:spatial,
> dct:temporal, dcat:granularity, dcat:theme could be at odds with the
> Simple Transformation From Existing Catalog Data requirement.  For
> example a dataset publisher may know that the dataset is about
> "Berlin, Germany" ... but they would have some work to do to figure
> out what URI to use with dct:spatial. Similarly they may know that a
> dataset is published by the National Aeronautics and Space
> Administration, but they will have to do some work to use a linkeddata
> friendly URI like <http://dbpedia.org/resource/NASA>.
> 
> Should the range for dct:license be dct:LicenseDocument (as specified
> in the dcterms vocabulary) instead of rdfs:Resource? Also, I was
> wondering if it might be appropriate to use foaf:Document instead of
> rdfs:Resource as the range on the dcat:dataDictionary. We're talking
> about referencing an actual web document (aka information resource)
> right?
> 
> I must admit I am a little bit perplexed by the use of dcat:accessUrl
> to describe a dcat:Download. The usage note indicates that:
> 
> """
> accessUrl of the Download distribution should be a direct download
> link (a one-click access to the data file).
> """
> 
> It makes me wonder if we should instead be recommending that the URI
> for the dcat:Download be the actual URI for the download. So for
> example:
> 
>   ex:dataset1 a dcat:Dataset ;
>       dcat:distribution ex:download1 .
> 
>   ex:download1 a dcat:Download ;
>       dcat:accessURL  <http://example.gov/downloads/1> ;
>       dct:format "text/csv" .
> 
> would become:
> 
>   ex:dataset1 a dcat:Dataset ;
>       dcat:distribution <http://example.gov/downloads/1> .
> 
>   <http://example.gov/downloads/1> dct:format "text/csv" .
> 
> See how the intermediary resource (probably a blank node in practice)
> goes away? I think the same could be said of dcat:Feed. To some extent
> I'm not convinced that dcat:Distribution and its subclasses are really
> necessary. An alternate approach would be two have two different
> properties for linking a dcat:Dataset to an a web resource:
> dcat:download (for direct download) and dcat:downloadInfo (or
> something else, for going to a page that describes how to
> download)...and let the rest be handled by media types and web
> architecture. To some extent you can see this principle at work in the
> notes currently in Catalog Record:
> 
> """
> @@@ in web-based catalogs, the URL of the catalog page should be used
> as URI for the catalog record if it is a permalink.
> """
> 
> Speaking of the linking properties, it appears that the vocab wiki
> page [2] is missing definitions for dcat:dataset, dcat:distribution
> and dcat:record for tying together instances of dcat:Catalog,
> dcat:CatalogRecord and dcat:Distribution?
> 
> Thanks for reading this far :-)
> 
> //Ed
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Data_Catalog_Vocabulary/Use_Cases_and_Require
> ments#Simple_transformation_from_existing_catalog_data
> [2] http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Data_Catalog_Vocabulary/Vocabulary_Reference
>

Received on Thursday, 27 May 2010 14:07:13 UTC