- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:16:12 +0000
- To: Fadi Maali <fadi.maali@deri.org>
- Cc: Luke Blaney <w3.mailing_lists@lukeblaney.co.uk>, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>, "public-gld-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-gld-comments@w3.org>, Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On 14 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Fadi Maali <fadi.maali@deri.org> wrote: >>>> I’d say no. I read the spec as saying that multiple downloadURLs indicate the same data in different formats. > > The more common case is to have downloadURL pointing to the entire dataset. If this is not the case, then I'd say yes you can use multiple downloadURL. > Different formats go in different instances of dcat:Distribution this instance have its format described using dct:format or dcat:mediaType You’re right. What I said above didn’t make sense. >>>> themeTaxonomy >>>> theme >>>> keyword >>>> contactPoint >>>> accessURL >>>> downloadURL >>>> byteSize >>>> mediaType >>>> > > The domain of these properties were not defined in the ontology because they can be of more use outside the scope of DCAT. e.g. one might want to use dcat:theme and dcat:keyword without imposing that the subject is of type dcat:Dataset. The definition of dcat:theme is: “The main category of the dataset.” Using the property on something that definitely isn’t a dcat:Dataset would be an error. Same for dcat:keyword. For an example where what you’re trying to do was done well, see SKOS: http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1541 But I’m not sure that this is a good idea. If something doesn’t fit the DCAT model of catalog-dataset-distribution, then I think one shouldn’t use DCAT. DCAT isn’t a general-purpose vocabulary for tagging resources or for describing byte streams. The catalog-dataset-distribution model is sufficiently flexible to fit many use cases, but why would one want to use a handful of DCAT properties outside of use cases that fit the model? Best, Richard
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 20:16:33 UTC