W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > July 2013

RE: Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:47:51 +0200
To: "'Public GLD WG'" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001401ce8956$b4837570$1d8a6050$@makxdekkers.com>
While this comment is made on ADMS, it is really DCAT that creates the
issue -- ADMS merely uses accessURL and downloadURL from DCAT.

The problem seems to be that there is a mismatch in the DCAT spec
between the definitions and the usage notes on one hand, and the range
declarations on the other. 

In DCAT, the description of accessURL says "Could be any kind of URL",
downloadURL is defined as a "link to a ... file". Both usage notes say
"the value is a URL". That conflicts indeed with the range of
rdfs:Resource. It may be pedantic, but it may also be confusing. 

If I understand correctly from an earlier discussion in the group, the
value of these properties (i.e. their range) is in fact the file (or the
landing page etc.) that contains (or gives access to) the bits (the
physical manifestation) of the dataset.

Maybe the accessURL could be defined as "A landing page, feed, SPARQL
endpoint or other type of resource that gives access to the distribution
of the dataset".

And for downloadURL: "A file that contains the distribution of the
dataset in a given format".

Both usage notes could then say that the resource is referred to by its


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:35 PM
> To: Public GLD WG
> Subject: Re: Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS)
> [inside WG, not replying to commenter yet]
> On 07/22/2013 01:12 AM, Paul Murray wrote:
> > I would suggest that the range of
> > 	dcat:AccessURL
> > 	dcat:downloadURL
> >
> > Should not be a resource, but a literal of type xs:anyURI . The
> vocabulary is not talking about a thing to which the URL refers, but
> about the URL in and of itself.
> >
> >
> > If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
> immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or
> any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not
> constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in
> respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
> >
> > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> >
> >
> >
> Thoughts?   My understanding is that he's correct in a pedantic sense,
> but that's not how people want to do things.   We should probably add
> some text to the document explaining this and maybe motivating it.
>       -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 16:48:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:39 UTC