Re: Is use of Data Cube Vocabulary for an observation-less catalog considered harmful?

Hi Ed,

Do I understand correctly that you would like to create DSDs with no
observations attached to them ?
It seems to me there is nothing preventing you from doing that but I don't
see why you need to extend the vocabulary if the goal is to list existing
DSD...
I've added Albert in cc to this thread as he is currently implementing
something similar. He'll be able to tell more about it and discuss where
your approach and his differ.

Regards,
Christophe

On 13 November 2014 05:11, Ed Staub <ed.staub@semanterra.org> wrote:

> I am working on an ontology for public cataloging of data cubes that could
> be an extension of the RDF Data Cube Vocabulary, where dimensions and
> measures are provided, but no observations.  If successful, there could be
> a
> lot of public instances of this around.
>
> While AFAICT it is technically valid to extend the Data Cube Vocabulary in
> this way, it seems like it may be in conflict with the intended use of the
> vocabulary, and might lead to undesired behavior by tools that implicitly
> expect instantiations of the Data Cube vocabulary to not be "empty suits" -
> to contain the data that they describe.
>
> Is this observation-less usage of the Data Cube Vocabulary for cataloging
> advisable?
>
> -Ed Staub
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Onderzoeker
+31(0)6 14576494
christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl

*Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*

DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en
NWO.


Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:

DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |
www.dans.knaw.nl


*Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/

*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>