- From: Ed Staub <ed.staub@semanterra.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:11:55 -0500
- To: 'Christophe Guéret' <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
- Cc: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, 'Albert Meroño Peñuela' <albert.merono@dans.knaw.nl>
> Do I understand correctly that you would like to create DSDs with no observations attached to them ? Yes, that's right. > ... but I don't see why you need to extend the vocabulary ... The ways in which I'm extending it seemed irrelevant to my question, so I didn't get into it. FWIW, I'm exploring whether cataloging with deep semantics that describe the real-world relationships between the measures and dimensions can lead to better means for search and mashup. > nothing preventing you from doing that... Yes, I know the Ontology Police won't come get me ;-) - I'm just concerned about mucking up the ecosystem, creating usage ambiguity where there was none before, simply because no one had considered this usage before. -Ed > From: Christophe Guéret [mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 6:37 AM > To: Ed Staub > Cc: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org; dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com; Albert Meroño Peñuela > Subject: 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? > > >
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 17:12:29 UTC