- From: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:37:18 +0000
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <56F27FEE.9070504@derilinx.com>
Hi, I agree that we should keep the BP on Data Subsetting. While using an API (or SPARQL endpoint, etc. ) is a best practice for grabbing a subset of a larger dataset, a lot of issues people are facing around this topic is how to model sub-datasets in DCAT, and how to represent them in CKAN. Therefore, I suggest the example section include not only an API example, but also an example using DataCube and DCAT. Otherwise, we should explicitly say it's not best practice to model subsetting in DCAT. Cheers, Deirdre On 23/03/2016 03:23, Laufer wrote: > > Hi All, > > Considering that we have a BP "Provide bulk download", it makes sense > to also have a BP about providing "subset download". > > My comment is about the "Possible Approach of Implementation" that I > think is too narrow, talking only about an API as a way of access to > subsets. > > I think it would be nice to talk about URI Templates (RFC6570), Linked > Data API [2] and even about a SPARQL endpoint as possible > approaches of implementations for accessing subsets. > > Cheers, Laufer > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570 > > [2] http://www.epimorphics.com/web/projects/linked-data-api > > -- > > . . . .. . . > . . . .. > . .. . > -- ------------------------------------ Deirdre Lee, CEO & Founder Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions Web: www.derilinx.com Email: deirdre@derilinx.com Address: 11/12 Baggot Court, Dublin 2, D02 F891 Tel: +353 (0)1 254 4316 Mob: +353 (0)87 417 2318 Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ Twitter: @deirdrelee
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2016 11:38:04 UTC