RE: DCAT comments - dataset dependecy - http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vocab-dcat-20130801/

I agree with Johan that  objects (datasets) dependencies are important. In the engage-project.eu, we have “derived” datasets published along with the “original” ones and we need to invent some home-made means to handle this relationship.

Although despite this problem seems common, I’m not sure that a common cure for it can be found in DCAT. The object dependencies may be specific as the object lifecycles and the modes of object re-use (when the need for the expression of dependencies appears) are specific, too. So it may be hard to find the balance between generality and granularity to keep (most of) DCAT practitioners happy. Also it may contradict the DCAT metaphor of a “catalogue” that contains descriptions of isolated “items”.

I’m not sure but some kind of “the objects/datasets dependencies ontology” may be the way forward – something beyond DCAT. The statements underpinned by the ontology can be then published in a separate registry/catalogue or shared otherwise, e.g. by making them harvestable. The separation of dependency statements from the objects/datasets only makes sense as you may want to describe the dependencies of objects/datasets registered in more than one catalogue.

With kind regards,
Vasily Bunakov
STFC Scientific Computing

From: Johan De Smedt [mailto:johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com]
Sent: 06 August 2013 16:41
To: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Subject: DCAT comments - dataset dependecy - http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vocab-dcat-20130801/


Dear,

Based on work we are doing in the LOD2 project please consider the following.

Data sets typically ma have dependencies.
Examples:
- subjects used for tagging a document may be detailed in one or more concept schema (available from the concept scheme data-set)
- digital objects may have dependencies among each other (e.g. in the FRBR structure a work has further details in expressions; expressions have details in manifestations)
Access and download of datasets may benefit (be more generic and be optimized) from having such dependencies formalized in DCAT.

Such dependency relationship (similar to void:subset) seems not to be captured in the current DCAT version (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vocab-dcat-20130801/)
If this is correct, can it be added?

Kind Regards,

Johan De Smedt
Chief Technology Officer

mail: johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com<mailto:johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com>
mobile: +32 477 475934
[mail-TenForce]