- From: Fadi Maali <fadi.maali@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:27 +0100
- To: johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com
- Cc: vasily.bunakov@stfc.ac.uk, "public-gld-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-gld-comments@w3.org>, Alasdair J G Gray <Alasdair.Gray@manchester.ac.uk>
Hi Johan, Thank you for your feedback on DCAT! I was wondering whether the vocabularies suggested by Alasdair address your needs. Please keep in mind that DCAT is meant to be minimal and generic. Properties that are not used by catalogues and address specific needs were not included in DCAT. Further detailed specification can be defined via profiles of DCAT (see ADMS for an example http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/ ) Regards, Fadi -------------------------------------------------- Fadi Maali PhD student @ DERI Irish Research Council Embark Scholarship holder http://www.deri.ie/users/fadi-maali On 7 Aug 2013, at 13:51, Alasdair J G Gray <Alasdair.Gray@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2013, at 13:19, <vasily.bunakov@stfc.ac.uk> wrote: > >> 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. > > Does the PROV ontology [1] capture the relationships that you are after, or perhaps you need the more fine-grained relationships of the provenance, authoring and versioning ontology (PAV) [2]? With regard to PAV they have importedFrom, retrievedFrom and derivedFrom relationships for the type of interaction you are describing. If you have other relationship types, I'd be very interested to hear. > > Alasdair > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ > [2] http://pav-ontology.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/pav.html > >> >> 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 >> mobile: +32 477 475934 >> <image001.jpg> >> > > Dr Alasdair J G Gray > Research Associate > Alasdair.Gray@manchester.ac.uk > +44 161 275 0145 > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~graya/ > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. >
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2013 09:53:59 UTC