Response to comments on DXWG UCR

Thanks for your comments to the DXWG on January 24 [1].

we have discussed this and offer the following response:

With regards to the "update" relationship, we are aware that we need to be
very careful not to overspecify such relationships, as different
communities will have different needs and interpretations.

The derived requirement (6.6.1 Related datasets [RRDS] ) is in a draft
state, and and the wording is currently "Ability to represent the different
relationships between datasets, including: versions of a dataset,
collection of datasets, to describe their inclusion criteria and to define
the 'hasPart'/'partOf' relationship, derivation, e.g. processed data that
is derived from raw data."

The DCAT drafting team is yet to determine to what extent it is possible or
desirable to identify common relationships and provide canonical
definitions and identifiers for these.

With regard to your comment on UC 5.27,  we note that the list of terms
attributed to the OGC MetOcean is based on an informal interpretation of
proposal presentation, and we would welcome an authoritative list and
citation to update this in the next draft.  This doesnt substantially
affect the nature of the derived requirement, which currently has a
non-commital wording "Allow for specification of the start and/or end date
of temporal coverage".

Recognising it may be advantageous to change this to reflect the
differences in temporal concepts, does this improve the requirement?

"Allow for specification of the start and/or end dates of different aspects
of temporal coverage".



Regards
Rob Atkinson on behalf of DXWG

[1]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2018Jan/0002.html