Re: reviewing the BP doc

Makx,

I think we have to be carefull about using the words abstract and instance.

>From the discussions, it seems to me that the Dataset is an abstract thing
with instances that are the distributions.

This is what I have understood from the posts from Bernadette and from you.
And (until now) I do not agree with this.

Sorry about my confusion.

Laufer

PS - I don't think I am complicating the things. They are really
complicated.


Em segunda-feira, 29 de junho de 2015, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
escreveu:

>
>
> Laufer,
>
>
>
> I think you making things more complicated than they are. Distributions
> are not ‘instances’ of the ‘abstract thing’ Dataset. The instances of the
> class Dataset are datasets and the instances of the class Distribution are
> distributions. I think the specification of DCAT is quite clear how this
> works, and it includes lots of examples.
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting.
>
>
>
> Just thinking.
>
>
>
> If a specific Dataset is an abstract thing it will be the type of that
> collection of distributions, the instances of that type.
>
>
>
> So why we are calling the instances distributions and not Datasets?
>
>
>
> Is a distribution a Dataset?
>
>
>
> (I am asking)
>
>
>
> Man is an abstract thing. I am an instance of Man. I am a Man.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that we are defining a Dataset as the type of a set of
> distributions. But is this the idea of DCAT?
>
>
>
> A csv file and an xml file of a Dataset, with the same data, are different
> instances of a Dataset? The fact that they are in different formats implies
> in being different instances?
>
>
>
> If two distributions has not the same data from an abstract Dataset, they
> are two different instances of that Dataset or they are different views of
> that Dataset?
>
>
>
> Laufer
>
>
>
>
>
> Em segunda-feira, 29 de junho de 2015, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
> escreveu:
>
> Ø  I don't think that a Dataset is an abstract thing. But I agree that
> distributions of a Dataset (DCAT definition) are instances of the same
> Dataset source.  And this is one of the possible relations between Datasets.
>
> In my perspective, a Dataset **is** an abstract thing. It only physically
> exists in its Distributions. For example, a Dataset may not have
> Distributions, e.g. if a description of a Dataset is generated before the
> data is collected (the Dataset of tomorrow’s weather observations) or a
> description still exists in the Catalog after the data files have been
> deleted. In my mind, that means a Dataset is an abstract entity.
>
> The description of ADMS http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/, a specification
> closely related to DCAT, is more explicit about this. It defines
>  adms:Asset, a subclass of dcat:Dataset, as: “An abstract entity that
> reflects the intellectual content of the asset and represents those
> characteristics of the asset that are independent of its physical
> embodiment.”
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>


-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .