RE: reviewing the BP doc



Let’s not use words like ‘abstract things’ because we might have different ideas what that phrase means.


What is clear is that dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution are classes in the DCAT model. DCAT defines what they are and how they are related. DCAT is also clear about how those classes relate to the physical data files or to the endpoints that give access to the actual data.


I think we should restrict the discussion to that model. If not, we might end up developing a different model, and I am not sure that this group really wants to go there.





From: Laufer [] 
Sent: 29 June 2015 22:30
To: Makx Dekkers
Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
Subject: Re: reviewing the BP doc


Ok, Makx.

I know this DCAT diagram. I am comfortable with this. And in this model, both Datasets and Distributions are not abstract things.
What it is not comfortable to me is to consider that a Dataset is an abstract thing.



2015-06-29 16:04 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers < <> >:



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


Agree. Let’s not use those words. 


*  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.


This is *not* what I have argued. Please look at the diagram and examples in section 4 of DCAT That section gives an overview of the modelling approach of DCAT. I would agree that there are many other ways you could model this space, but DCAT is just what it is.




.  .  .  .. .  . 
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .

Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 11:42:26 UTC