Re: DCAT 1.1 Public Review - Insee / DDI Alliance

Hi Guillaume,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the email
address for public comments before. I has now been fixed. I checked and I
hadn't received your email before. Apologies for that and thanks for
resending.

We will discuss your comments on the next meeting and get back to you.

Best regards,

Alejandra



On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 13:23, Duffes Guillaume <guillaume.duffes@insee.fr>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Having not received any feedback, and noticed that none of the remarks has
> been added on Github or corrected in the draft version (e.g the typo in the
> issue 72), I take the opportunity to relaunch you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guillaume Duffes
> Insee
>
> ------------------------------
> *De :* Duffes Guillaume
> *Envoyé :* lundi 11 juin 2018 10:19
> *À :* 'public-dxwg-comments@w3.org'
> *Cc :* 'Wackerow, Joachim'; Wendy Thomas; Jared Lyle; Cotton Franck;
> Kelly Chatain
> *Objet :* DCAT 1.1 Public Review - Insee / DDI Alliance
>
> Dear all,
>
> Firstly thank you very much for the release of this new public working
> document and the very detailed and in-depth work you have been doing
> especially on GitHub. You can find below a couple of remarks from the
> French National Statistical Institute, Insee, and one from the DDI Alliance
> the editor of Disco one of the Related non-W3C vocabularies you have been
> discussing.
> - Note 5 / Issue #98: The subtyping relationship between dctype:Dataset
> and dcat:Dataset has been removed. Although the subtype was indeed too
> restrictive, should another relationship not be added to characterise the
> relationship between both and leave the user helpless?
> - 11 DCAT Profiles, Issue 72, "for spcific applications" --> "for
> specific applications"
> - Define guidelines how to create a DCAT description of a VOID or Data
> Cube dataset <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88>:
>     ** We agree with the fact that this "DCAT using QB" should be
> harmonised with VOID and clarified. It is crucial for the official
> statistics community to use the proper semantics and relationship between
> these vocabularies.
>     ** In our mind, qb:DataStructureDefinition and qd:Slice are meant to
> express subsets (see also #161 <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/161>) like
> "startups in Italy". A similar use case is provided in the RDF Data Cube
> Recommendation.
>
> Comment from the DDI Alliance that clarifies the link between Disco and
> the future DDI4:
> - Disco is based on common content of DDI Lifecycle 3.2 and DDI 2.1
> focused on the discovery of statistical (micro)datasets.. Disco was never
> formally published by DDI.
> The new model-driven version of the standard, DDI 4, will be also
> expressed as an OWL ontology (in the works), and be a complete and in-depth
> overhaul. In particular, it will encompass all kinds of data, not only
> statistical micro data. It takes over the features from Disco. A prototype
> release of DDI 4 will be published in the middle of the year. It will
> include the UML model and related complete representations/bindings in XML
> Schema and OWL/RDF-S.
> Regards,
>
> Guillaume Duffes
> (33)141175278
> INSEE
>
>