Re: [dxwg] Distributions, services and implementation-resources (#411)

@agreiner,  I think the 3 use cases you spell out are good tests of whether the WG is comfortable about the level of support we now have in the core vocabulary.  We're trying to balance the variation we see across domains/participants in what are seen as distributions of the same dataset (specifically - a very wide variation) and the need in some domains for much more precision. The now rather long note on the vocabulary definition for [`dcat:Distribution`](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#Class:Distribution) does try to acknowledge that some publishers might commit to certain guaranteed behaviour (that all the distributions are informationally equivalent) but that in general that isn't the case.

I suspect any commitment that two distributions are the same data has to be clear who is making the commitment.  In the first and perhaps second of your use cases its likely that it would be whoever is the publisher of the dataset.  In the third case, a suspicious user might want a decent provenance chain (on both the metadata and the data itself) so that they can assess whether they are happy using it.  Although its not explicit in the Provenance [section](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#prov-patterns) of the document, the provisional alignment (turtle [here](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/dxwg/gh-pages/dcat/rdf/dcat-prov.ttl)) does have `dcat:Distribution` as a subclass of `prov:Entity`.

Does that go far enough?


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by davebrowning
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/411#issuecomment-463996535 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 15 February 2019 10:50:11 UTC