- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 08:59:15 +0100
- To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
The notions of dataset and distributions are key to DCAT. They match similar ideas in other domains, notably the library world's FRBR vocabulary that distinguishes between a Work, such as 'Beethoven's 5th' and its Expression, such as a particular recording or performance. Licences are attached to DCAT Distributions, not Datasets, because it's possible that different distributions of the same data will be released under different licences. For example, a PDF might be available under an open licence, whilst a proprietary format might be under a more restrictive licence. It may be worth noting that dcat:Distribution and dcat:Dataset are not disjoint, so if there's just one file that is the dataset then it can be both, but we probably shouldn't promote this too heavily as it might lead people to lose the distinction between the two classes. So, bottom line, yes, I think we should distinguish between datasets and distributions in our work. Phil. On 13/05/2015 21:59, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been working on the examples for the BP [1] and I am not sure of how > to define data licence metadata. In DCAT, licence is defined as a property > of distribution. However, in our BP we just mention datasets. Should we > also consider the notion of distribution in our BP? > > Cheers, > Bernadette > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#metadata > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2015 07:59:20 UTC