W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Using schema.org Dataset metadata properties

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:57:00 +0100
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <etPan.5417286c.11447b73.14e@jenit.local>
Ivan,

Given that we’re adopting JSON-LD for the metadata file, anyone *can* use any vocabulary. I was thinking that we should including the binding of ‘dc’ to the Dublin Core namespace so that people can easily add metadata in that scheme if they want to.

I think there is huge value in having a predictable structure to metadata, as it helps with validation, display and conversion. Adopting JSON-LD in effect enforces a particular structure, eg saying that “publisher” must look like:

  “publisher”: {
    “@id”: "http://www.hefce.ac.uk/“,
    “name": "Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)"
  }

or

  “publisher”: "http://www.hefce.ac.uk/“

and not

  “publisher”: "Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)"

Adopting schema.org normatively would mean saying that “publisher” means what it means in schema.org, which I think is what we would want to do.

Cheers,

Jeni

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Reply: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>>
Date: 14 September 2014 at 08:07:03
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>>
Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>>
Subject:  Re: Using schema.org Dataset metadata properties

> I have a meta-question on this. Is the list of terms listed in the document normative or  
> informative? The current document does not make a difference (ie, by default, it is normative,  
> including the references), but I presume this is simply because we never asked ourselves  
> the question.
>  
> At the moment, the text says:
>  
> [[[
> Descriptions may contain any properties defined by [DC-TERMS] to describe the table.  
> This specification does not define any application behaviour associated with these  
> properties being present, except that validation of metadata files must check that,  
> if they are present, they adhere to the syntax defined here.
> ]]]
>  
> This at first suggests that the [Dublin Core] vocabulary is informative (and optional)  
> but then it mandates specific value syntax for some of the properties when validating.  
> I think it could be debated whether this additional validation requirement actually  
> makes the reference normative, but it is not clear. I guess the question is whether we  
> will have a notion of conforming metadata, of a possible metadata validator, and what  
> they are supposed to exactly do.
>  
> Why is this question relevant? Because if the whole section is normative than we MUST  
> make a choice on whether, for a specific goal, we choose DCTERM or schema. If it is informative,  
> there is no problem referring to both and let the end user decide (and, actually, the exact  
> value syntax issue could also be removed simply referring to the definition of these  
> terms by DCMI and schema.org, respectively.)
>  
> (There is also an editorial/W3C issue. There are fairly stringent rules on whether we  
> can refer, _normatively_, to an external document. While this is not a problem with DCTERM,  
> this has not yet done before for schema.org, and it may lead to some discussions...)
>  
> Ivan
>  
>  
>  
> On 13 Sep 2014, at 18:28 , Jeni Tennison wrote:
>  
> > Hi,
> >
> > In the current metadata document here:
> >
> > http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/#common-properties
> >
> > the spec maps adopts the list of Dublin Core properties for describing tables etc. As  
> ISSUE 6 says, this might not be the right choice: there might be other standard vocabularies  
> that should be used instead or as well.
> >
> > On the call this week, Dan suggested using schema.org instead, namely the properties  
> on Dataset here:
> >
> > http://schema.org/Dataset
> >
> > The properties there are informed by DCAT which itself was informed by Dublin Core.  
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Jeni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CSV on the Web Working Group Issue Tracker  
> > Reply: CSV on the Web Working Group >
> > Date: 10 September 2014 at 13:23:37
> > To: jeni@jenitennison.com >
> > Subject: ACTION-26: Write to mailing list re using schema.org rather than dublin core  
> for metadata about csv files, then binding decision on following telcon (CSV on the Web  
> Working Group)
> >
> >> ACTION-26: Write to mailing list re using schema.org rather than dublin core for metadata  
> >> about csv files, then binding decision on following telcon (CSV on the Web Working  
> Group)
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/track/actions/26
> >>
> >> On: Jeni Tennison
> >> Due: 2014-09-17
> >>
> >> If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please update your  
> >> settings at:
> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/track/users/33715#settings
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Jeni Tennison
> > http://www.jenitennison.com/
> >
>  
>  
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

--  
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Monday, 15 September 2014 17:55:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:42 UTC