W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > August 2019

Re: [dxwg] Dataset series (#868)

From: Dave Reynolds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 16:00:26 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-518294475-1565020825-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Thanks @makxdekkers. That would work for me. 

In our case we would likely want to treat each of our resources as an instance of both `dcat:DatasetSeries` and `dcat:Dataset`. That way we could give a distribution (and extent) for the overall aggregate as well as distributions for the individual elements within the series. It would also give us a transition plan - publish resources now as `dcat:Dataset`s (with the `dct:hasPart` and `dct:isPartOf` relationships to other `dcat:Datasets` for the elements) and then add declarations for `rdf:type dcat:DatasetSeries` when/if that becomes available with compatible semantics.

Do you think there's a chance of squeezing a non-normative indication of this as a possible future pattern into the doc? Or at least a comment that use of `dct:hasPart/isPartOf` on datasets is in principle legal? Not sure how close to CR you are so appreciate this might be too late. 

I mention this because https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/#Property:catalog_has_part implies that you have domain/range declarations for `dct:hasPart` which would mitigate against this pattern. I'm assuming this is just a confusing presentation that what you actually have are `owl:allValuesFrom` restrictions, and so not a problem.

GitHub Notification of comment by der
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/868#issuecomment-518294475 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 5 August 2019 16:00:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:28:31 UTC