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

Hi Fadi,

In-line I deleted what is ok for me and answerer on some of your questions

Kind Regards,

Johan De Smedt 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fadi Maali [mailto:fadi.maali@deri.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October, 2013 06:43
> To: Johan De Smedt
> Cc: public-gld-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DCAT comments - dataset dependecy - http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vocab-dcat-
> 20130801/
> 
> Hello Johan,
> Thanks for the following up.
> 
> Some comments inline...
> 
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:58, Johan De Smedt <johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Sandro, Fadi,
> >
> > 1) [JDS:>] [...cut...]
> >
> > 2) In case there is still room for amending some text, I would suggest:
> > a) [JDS:>] [...cut...].
> 
> > b) To make the usage note on dcat:mediaType more explicit.
> >      Add to usage note: “Best practice for retrieving a data using dcat:downloadURL is to set the HTTP
> header ‘Accept’ to a value of dcat:mediaType.”
> 
> While this sounds right to be recommended, my personal opinion is that the vocabulary specification
> should not include this recommendation as it relates to the deployment… thoughts on this?
> 
> > c) [JDS:>] [...cut...]

> > d) It is not clear how a multilingual dataset can be registered that has different distributions per
> language
> >      either -d.1- using a different dcat:downloadURL
> >           With the current model, this situation can be handled unambiguously by having multiple
> (further unrelated) data sets.
> >           If this is considered best practice, this could be clarified in a usage note on dataset
> dcat:language
> >      or -d.2- using the same downloadURL but with different values for the HTTP header Accept-
> Language
> >           With the current model this could be handled by adding a usage note on the dataset
> dct:language and on the distribution dcat:downloadURL
> 
> What about different distributions (each with its own downloadURL) for the same dataset?
[JDS:>] That is the case as detailed in -d.1- above - right?
Lets' take EU CELLAR which it actually provides examples for as well d.1 as d.2
The -d.1- case (multiple download URL)
- There is only 1 dataset with multiple format and language combinations, each distribution may have a different URL per language.
GET http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2006_331_R_0026_06.DEU
- with: Accept=application/xml; notice=branch
GET http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2006_331_R_0026_06.ENG
- with: Accept=application/xml; notice=branch
For DCAT, different dataset are required as the distribution in DCAT does not provide for detailing the language covered by that distribution.
Alternatively in DCAT,
- either 1  dataset is registered with 1 distribution, no downloadURL, an accessURL 
  requiring EU CELLAR to make additional landing pages to solve this ambiguity in DCAT. 
- either 2 datasets are registered (one per language) - this would bring it to 20+ datasets as there are over 20 languages supported
The -d.2- case (1 download URL)
GET http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2006_331_R_0026_06
- with: Accept=application/xml; notice=branch
gives a different result with either of the following:
- Accept-Language=en
- Accept-Language=de
The suggested usage note would cover this case without any change to DCAT or the dataset publisher.
 
On usage of content negotiation with HTTP header, see also:
- http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec12.html
- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2295.txt
Would DCAT be more clear if these are added as a reference - complying with the usage note I suggest to add?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Fadi Maali
> 
> 
> > Sorry for these late results on an implementation exercise we made with the EU Publication Office
> CELLAR platform.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Johan De Smedt
> > Chief Technology Officer
> >
> > mail: johan.de-smedt@tenforce.com
> > mobile: +32 477 475934
> > <image002.jpg>

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 06:46:40 UTC