- From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:14:37 +0100
- To: "'Phil Archer'" <phila@w3.org>, <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
> > https://github.com/carlosiglesias/dwbp/commit/31db9f89731419c9567bfd7a > 58e62acd478c6ed2 > > It's the latter than has the mention of DCAT-AP. I agree it probably > needs citing somewhere, just not in *this* BP. > OK, I see. I have been thinking about what the relevance of something like DCAT-AP would be for Best Practices. It seems to me that the current BP document supposes an environment with individual data publishers that are independent of other data publishers. Publishers also don't know or don't need to know what data consumers will want to do with their stuff. In such a set-up, recommending that they provide as much metadata as possible and preferably using a standard like DCAT makes sense. Now there are situations that data publishers do have relationships and do know what a data consumer wants to do with it. In the case of the group of organisations that agreed on the DCAT-AP (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_release/dcat-application-profile-data-portals-europe-final), they are part of a network of data portals that wanted to co-operate in providing data to an aggregator who builds an index over the combined collection. In such a case, it make sense to define, in addition to agreeing on the base standard, DCAT, *how* to implement that standard for that particular application. As the current BP collection does not consider these kinds of co-ordinated interoperable networks, I agree that the reference is not relevant, but maybe we should think of including something about these kinds of environments? Makx.
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 19:15:12 UTC