- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:24:09 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle If I remember correctly, the Goverment Linked Data working group that developed the 2014 version of DCAT spent hours and hours trying to define the boundaries of 'data' and 'dataset' and ended up with the current definition. Everytime someone suggested a boundary, someone else brought up an example of something clearly outside of the proposed boundary that everybody agreed could be seen as a dataset. Even in your examples, we could talk endlessly about why you think a concept scheme with a SKOS/RDF expression is a dataset and a profile with a SHACL/RDF expression and a printable PDF expression isn't. It's very personal. The GLD group decided that the discussion would never lead to consensus, and settled on the view that DCAT just provided a model and a set of properties that anyone could use to describe anything that they considered to be 'curated data'. I would suggest we do not reopen that discussion and try to define 'dataset' beyond the current definition. I honestly think we're not going to achieve a 'better' definition. And, yes, it means that someone can describe the book War and Peace as a Dataset, even if other people would think that it doesn't make sense. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/317#issuecomment-415825956 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 24 August 2018 17:24:11 UTC