Re: [dxwg] Related vocabularies mapping [RVM]

@rob-metalinkage responded by email: 

There is no particular reason qb: cant be used as metadata for datasets - they do not strictly need to be RDF encoded datasets - and the same with VoiD (and I had a conversation with Richard Cygniak when I was looking into this).  True, both have RDF friendly special semantics - such as  void:sparqlEndpoint - which indirectly requires a RDF representation via SPARQL I guess. But its optional.

qb:Dataset defintion is "Represents a collection of observations, possibly organized into various slices, conforming to some common dimensional structure."  - it makes no statement about RDF or data being present - in fact the standard says "This cube model is very general and so the Data Cube vocabulary can be used for other data sets such as survey data, spreadsheets and OLAP data cubes [OLAP]."

so, under the open-world assumption db:DataSet may just be metadata. I'm not sure if dcat:Dataset works equally well for metadata or datasets.

qb:DSD is the structural description part of QB, and could certainly be used as properties to qualify either dcat:Dataset or dcat:Distribution instances. 

AFAICT the only tricky thing to manage here is how the rdf:Property object described using QB is mapped to the structure of a dataset - for those instances such as spreadsheets etc where elements do not natively have URI names.

NB: There may need to be some clever entailment rules for profiles too - to allow narrower definitions of individual components to specialise a DSD defined in an ancestor profile.

(such as a commonly used dimension based on biological taxa codes, but a dataset where the range is limited to a specific genus)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88#issuecomment-372174392 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 12 March 2018 02:09:41 UTC