W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > May 2018

RE: [dxwg] dcat:accessURL - check constraints

From: <Peter.Winstanley@gov.scot>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 09:03:09 +0000
To: <sysbot+gh@w3.org>, <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BEA9D5BE2C1C76448E2955B1FD8769E101D37800DA@s0393g.scotland.gov.uk>
+1 to all of what Makx contributed there

-----Original Message-----
From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org> 
Sent: 04 May 2018 09:49
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [dxwg] dcat:accessURL - check constraints

I still disagree. We're haggling over a URI, `accessURL` versus `accessService`; in my mind, URIs are basically opaque strings -- you should not read any meaning into them, although human-readable strings may help implementers to remember them more easily.  But you really should not expect anything from just looking at the URI. 
What really matters is the definition of the term identified by a URI. In this case, the definition of `accessURL` is quite clear "_A landing page, feed, SPARQL endpoint or other type of resource that gives access to the distribution of the dataset_" -- note that it does not say "_The URL of a landing page ...._". 
If we wanted to include services in the definition, we could decide to make a minor change to the definition, e.g. "_A **service**, landing page, feed, SPARQL endpoint or other type of resource that gives access to the distribution of the dataset_". 
In my opinion, changing the URI to something that we find more elegant just for the sake of it is creating confusion where none is necessary.

--
GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/124#issuecomment-386540688 using your GitHub account

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

*******************************************************************************************************************************
This email has been received from an external party and has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. 
*******************************************************************************************************************************


********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return.

Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.


Tha am post-d seo (agus faidhle neo ceanglan còmhla ris) dhan neach neo luchd-ainmichte a-mhàin. Chan eil e ceadaichte a chleachdadh ann an dòigh sam bith, a’ toirt a-steach còraichean, foillseachadh neo sgaoileadh, gun chead. Ma ’s e is gun d’fhuair sibh seo gun fhiosd’, bu choir cur às dhan phost-d agus lethbhreac sam bith air an t-siostam agaibh agus fios a leigeil chun neach a sgaoil am post-d gun dàil.

Dh’fhaodadh gum bi teachdaireachd sam bith bho Riaghaltas na h-Alba air a chlàradh neo air a sgrùdadh airson dearbhadh gu bheil an siostam ag obair gu h-èifeachdach neo airson adhbhar laghail eile. Dh’fhaodadh nach  eil beachdan anns a’ phost-d seo co-ionann ri beachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba. 
**********************************************************************


Received on Friday, 4 May 2018 09:04:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:43 UTC