Re: [dxwg] Are PROF roles misplaced in resourceDescription? (#769)

@smrgeoinfo Thanks. Yes, I was thinking along those lines, possibly inspired by your diagram. My thinking is that because role and distribution are not one-to-one, and refer to different logical "things", the role and the distribution must be separated. In the design I proposed the graph linking directly to the artifact could be analogous to a dcat:Distribution, which is a description of a single, physical (including digital) resource. The resource itself is linked from the distribution. 

The hitch there is the use of dct:format. dcat:Distribution also uses dct:format in a way that is questionable. The subject of dct:format is a "thing" that is of that format, e.g. 
myFile.csv dct:format "text/csv" 
If we use dct:format in this way in a distribution, then we also have:
myFile.csv dcat:accessURL myFile.csv
Is this desirable? I suspect not. 

What seems logical to me is that all triples that describe the artifact must be in a graph with the URI of the artifact as the subject. And all triples that describe the role would be in a graph whose URI identifies the role. Relationships between entities should be properties that link those entities.

I would love to learn of examples of implementations of RDF that have balanced this need for description of things and identification of the things. I wonder if we can find an analog in the Web Annotation Ontology, and therefore if @azaroth42 might not have some ideas? The dcat:Distribution might be a kind of annotation?

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 23 February 2019 21:21:14 UTC