- From: Lars G. Svensson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:41:07 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Answer per email from @rob-metalinkage @larsgsvensson asked "Can you expand a bit on VoID not being only for RDF? Given the [definition](https://www.w3.org/TR/void/#dataset) "A dataset is a set of RDF triples that are published, maintained or aggregated by a single provider", I'd say that VoID is _only_ about RDF triples..." Several years ago I had a conversation with one of the authors Richard Cygniak (it was when I was at CSIRO and I dont have access to the mail thread any more). My Use Case was describing datasets that are not _currently_ published as RDF, but that in an evolving Linked Data environment would ideally be, so we could kick start the process of providing fine grained semantics about data and services. I asked whether there is a need for a dataset to be stored as RDF - and if merely capable of being expressed as RDF was sufficient. From memory Richard C confirmed that this was a reasonable interpretation. Given pretty much all the metadata in Void is optional, there is no problem with describing TechnicalFeatures that relate to non RDF access methods or distributions, and leaving out the RDF specific sparqlEndpoint. Only properties like void:vocabulary, classPartition etc reference IRI identifiers, and hence a contract around the RDF model that would be assumed. (QB helps resolve the shortfall, but void:vocabulary is not actually that useful anyway as discussed above). so the same issues apply to how mappings from IRI based identifiers to local identifiers (e.g. column names in a spreadsheet) is the one mechanism we need to think about for all these cases. -- GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/88#issuecomment-372651585 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2018 12:41:15 UTC