- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 02:11:22 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I should have written ``` <resource1> , <resource2> , <resource3> , <resource4> , <resource5> , <resource6> , <resource7> ``` though in practice they usually are files in repositories. In strict DCAT terms - `<file1> , <file2>` are probably better modelled as other individual `dcat:Datasets`, so their descriptions should have URIs in the context of a catalog - `<file3> , <file4>` are probably `dcat:Distributions`, so the descriptions would often be blank nodes, with a `downloadURL` or `accessURL` to the actual file - `<file5>` is probably another `dcat:Dataset` though preferably to an online resource (standard schema!) - `<file6>` should probably be another `dcat:Dataset` - `<file7>` is a document stored as part of the package. Again, strictly another `dcat:Dataset` somewhere. But this is all idealized. The point is that most repositories do not require the depositor to make such distinctions, and as long as manually-completed forms are involved there will be resistance or non-compliance from the kind of data depositors that I have in mind (researchers). There might be some heuristics that could be applied, and future automation will help. But my proposal is that with the addition of just one axiom we might accommodate the present reality in a way that improves on current habits - where in the absence of something better, _everything_ in a bag of files is linked to the dataset using `dcat:distribution` - which I think we all agree is wrong. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/253#issuecomment-396443084 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 02:11:24 UTC