Re: [dxwg] Clarify definition of dct:accrualPeriodicity in the context of DCAT (#728)

@kcoyle said:

> @dr-shorthair I agree that there is a significant difference between adding items to a set and updating items in a set. The dct term, being from the archival world, it definitely about the former. So I could consider accrualPeriodicity to be about adding to the set, which in DCAT would be the catalog. Updating the dataset itself is closer in my mind to versioning, as the dataset undergoes a change. dqm's "[expected update interval](http://semwebquality.org/dqm-vocabulary/v1/dqm#expectedUpdateInterval)" seems closer to the latter. If both are needed then they obviously should be distinguished.

Not necessarily. If the dataset is updated by adding new data items (e.g., adding new rows in a table), without modifying the existing ones, then we are in the same case of the catalogue - where each dataset can be considered as a data item.

We are talking here about different ways (not mutually exclusive) on how a dataset can be updated, and how they are relevant for users. I think that, in the most general case, users are interested in knowing how frequently a dataset is updated, and they are not very much interested in how this is done. If we identify the need to also clarify whether the update was done by modifying the existing data, adding new data items, or both, fine. But we don't have to forget the most general use case.

About `dct:accrualPeriodicity`, I would support including any clarification on its meaning and recommended use, but we need to take into account that, since 2014, all datasets documented with DCAT have been using `dct:accrualPeriodicity` to cover all the cases of frequency of update of a dataset, so whatever we do must not break backward compatibility.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/728#issuecomment-464468314 using your GitHub account

Received on Sunday, 17 February 2019 15:08:24 UTC