- From: David Browning via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:18:37 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Fully agree that there would be great value in some story, though I'm a little unsure that there is a _single_ pattern that can be recommended. Worth trying, anyway, now we seem to have a stable definition of the qualities of `dcat:Distribution`. In the spirit of starting a conversation: The spatial series seems a good entry point here: in that case would each map be a `dcat:Dataset` with its own `dcat:Distribution`s? [DCAT-rev definition of distributions means that you would have to do this, since the content of different maps is different.] If we just link these (with some variant of `dct:relation` or `dcat:qualifiedRelation`) then we have the connections but no holder for metadata common across the series. We could have a parent dataset (trying hard not to call it an atlas) which has the maps as constituent parts, which would hint at common metadata and use something like `prov:specializationOf` to identify the members of the series, though some kind of generic (cataloguable) container type would work too, I think. Or is all that too simplistic? For the temporal case, we might be able to do the same kind of pattern, but I suspect that there are naturally more things at play there, or possibly other use cases. Versioning - or more specifically change through the progress of time - seems to me to become part of the picture very quickly, whereas for spatial and other kinds of series it would be a bit more orthogonal. Perhaps the temporal kind of series is better looked at via some kind of service paradigm. That might all just be my narrow/limited world view, though. :smile: -- GitHub Notification of comment by davebrowning Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/868#issuecomment-479017792 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2019 14:18:39 UTC