Re: status of DCAT

Hi James,

I spoke to Ira a week or two ago and yes, OKFN is supportive of using 
the latest version of DCAT*. The issue for them, as always for all of 
us, is funding. CKAN users see DCAT support is being something that CKAN 
should do as a core function - but getting funding to build your core 
function is always a lot harder than getting funding to add novel new 
features that the funder can claim credit for.


* Stability is the key here. Whether DCAT becomes a Rec or a Note, the 
key signal we need to send out is that it is now stable. What's there 
now isn't going to change any time soon. We can adduce evidence for this 
- the updated namespace doc (www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl) shows what would 
happen to any existing term that was deprecated at a later date - i.e. 
it remains in the namespace but is flagged as being deprecated. That 
should, I hope, give a strong signal of stability.

The proposed new Data on the Web Best Practices WG [1], now under W3C 
Member review includes a deliverable that is likely to extend DCAT but 
not change any of the existing terms.

We'll discuss DCAT later today on the GLD call so I'll be quiet on the 
subject for now :-)

Phil.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2013/05/odbp-charter.html

On 17/10/2013 10:15, James McKinney wrote:
> Hi Fadi and all,
>
> I believe OKFN is open to adopting DCAT - has anyone asked? I'll be meeting with several people responsible for CKAN in the next week, so I can bring it up.
>
> I've also worked to get Project Open Data [1] to use the latest version of DCAT. Unfortunately, the employees responsible are furloughed, so the last few corrections have yet to be merged. Once the US government reboots, we should see compliant implementations, but it looks like so far no agency has implemented their recommendations.
>
> 1. http://project-open-data.github.io/
>
> James
>
> On 2013-10-17, at 1:08 AM, Fadi Maali wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I would really still love to see DCAT moving on the Rec track if possible. AFAIK, the main problem is the lack of compliant implementations (data).
>> This is mainly for two reasons:
>> 1. There exists a number of plans to provide DCAT data but none is out yet. For examples:
>> -EU: DCAT Application Profile https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_release/dcat-application-profile-data-portals-europe-final
>> - Spain: there is an official decision by the government that all datasets must be published using DCAT https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/news/spanish-government-publishes-metadata-specification-describing-p
>> - Belgium: see a tweet from Paul Hermans https://twitter.com/PaulZH/status/385684667388919808
>> 2. Existing data uses older version of DCAT and are non-compliant therefore.
>> I have looked into a number of available DCAT data and summarised the results at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations
>> All data I was able to find is non-compliant.
>>
>> In addition, With OKFN having their own JSON-based dataset description recommendation and the Schema.org Dataset extension, it is harder to find DCAT data.
>>
>> It would be great if we can think of a set of actions that we might do in order to DCAT on Rec track. Could we provide implementations ourselves? What other items are required to keep DCAT on Rec track?
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Fadi Maali
>> PhD student @ Insight Galway (formerly DERI)
>> Irish Research Council Embark Scholarship holder
>> http://www.deri.ie/users/fadi-maali
>>
>>
>
>

-- 

Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 09:35:54 UTC