- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 17:50:07 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle What worries me here is that you seem to question fundamental aspects of the model. If that's the case, there is no way we can publish a FPWD. As far as understand, the profile model is quite similar to the DCAT model. I don't think that is a problem. Rather, I think it is a strength. Personally, I see no problem with ProfileDistribution -- if the class is well defined, a reader that knows about DCAT would see the similarity, and a reader who doesn't know about DCAT would just read the definition and that's it. Of course there are one-to-many relationships, at least the way I understand the model. In the case of DCAT-AP, https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap/12 is the `prof:Profile` and each of the things linked at the bottom of that page are instances of `prof:ProfileDistribution`. They are actually listed under a heading "Distributions"(!) If you look at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/rdf_entity/http_e_f_fdata_ceuropa_ceu_fw21_fb8e6a3e2_b372e_b4be3_b8cc6_b938c7a2181ce (unfortunately not a nice URI), there you have the format and a download link (prof:hasArtifact). In my mind, your example of the two profiles X(A,B,C,D) and Y(A,B,C,D,E) are two different profiles and would be two instances of prof:Profile, with each having their own a set of ProfileDistributions, e.g. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap/11 vs. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap/12. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/573#issuecomment-439634895 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2018 17:50:09 UTC