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

Re: [dxwg] FPWD comment: use dcat:Distribution for Resource (#529)

From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 00:52:30 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-463007655-1550019149-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@andrea-perego @nicholascar I second @smrgeoinfo 's reminder that his proposal for aligning to DCAT (or at least for having an analogy with it) is that it's not the `prof:ResourceDescriptor` level in the current PROF that corresponds to `dcat:Distribution`; it's rather the level of "artifacts".
So if being an `adms:Asset` implies being a `dcat:Distribution`, then as Andrea says `prof:ResourceDescriptor` wouldn't be an `adms:Asset`. Which is not a big worry for me...

Maybe one good litmus test is the question: where does `dct:format` fit in the landscape? 
Currently PROF has it on `ResourceDescriptor` but I think it's not appropriate. Many expressions of profiles (such as OWL or SHACL) can exist in different syntaxes (such as RDF/XML or Turtle), thus in different media types, and thus in different `dct:format`s. To me therefore `dct:format` fits better at the level of PROF's artifacts. If (as I believe) `dct:format` is rather a `dcat:Distribution` property in DCAT, then it means that the analogy between PROF's artifacts and `dcat:Distribution` is stronger than the one between `prof:ResourceDescriptor` and `dcat:Distribution`.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/529#issuecomment-463007655 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2019 00:52:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:13 UTC