[dxwg] Links across DCAT rec, rdf files and namespace pages

davebrowning has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/dxwg:

== Links across DCAT rec, rdf files and namespace pages ==
The draft DCAT-rev (FPWD, editors draft, second PWD) use links in the same way as the [2014 DCAT recommendation](https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-vocab-dcat-20140116/) does.  In general this means that

1. Most links in textual sections (especially if without a namespace prefix such as `dct:` or `dcat:`) use intra-document fragment links to the appropriate section in the Recommendation document.
2. Within the vocabulary specification in the Definition, Domain and Range fields, the entries link either to an rdf file (e.g [rdfs:literal](http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal)) or to a textual spec (e.g. [foaf:homepage](http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document) - though this particular link isn't quite precise) or to the namespace document for DCAT (e.g.[dcat:Catalog](http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Catalog)).  This last then requires the user to choose from either an Turtle or RDF/XML rendering of the ontology.

In addition, our namespace document at http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat# barely passes muster against the policy https://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri.  More compliant human-readable documents can be found at https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html, https://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace, https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema amngst others.  [Machine readable versions seem more difficult to find]

As part of moving DCAT-rev forward, I think it would be useful to readers of the recommendation if

- we had a consistent approach to where the links in the document take you - either to a rdf files or to more explanatory documents targeted at humans across all of the references.  [Assuming suitable targets can be found, of course 

- We expand the namespace document to make it more useful to users/align with current standards and policies, and to save the extra 'click' needed to get anywhere useful.

I'm looking for a steer here from interested parties on what the right approach is here, especially where tooling/machine readability may play a role so suggestions on what we _should_ provide would be extremely useful, as well as any input from the profile guidance work etc.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/377 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2018 12:54:57 UTC