- From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:43:22 +0200
- To: "Maali, Fadi" <fadi.maali@deri.org>
- CC: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi Fadi, I see. It seems a bit unfortunate that void:Dataset was defined so strictly. Maybe it should be a sub-type of dcat:Dataset then. I wonder if http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Dataset would be appropriate for mapping. Anyway, happy with all the comments, thanks! :-) Regards, Simon Maali, Fadi wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Thanks for your comments. regarding the DCAT part: > >> I also see some other potential mappings or opportunities for re-use: > dcat:Dataset could >> be a sub-class or replaced with void:Dataset [5]. > > dcat:Dataset can't be a subclass of void:Dataset because it is a more > general concept. > void:Dataset represents an RDF dataset while dcat:Dataset captures any > dataset. > Consideration of other possible mappings (e.g. to dcat:Distribution) are > also possible > see [7] for an initial discussion. Mapping the two vocabularies is > definitely worth > thinking of however I believe deferring the decsion until dcat is used > more in the > wild and usecases become clearer is better for now. > > Regards, > Fadi > > [1] https://plus.google.com/102497386507936526460/posts/Xswyq5GxdvL > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-people/ > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/void/ > [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/ > [7] http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/detail?id=63 >
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 16:44:03 UTC