- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 22:27:33 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle i dont see why a set of constraints defining a profile (eg SHACL or SHEX) document is not equivalent to a Distribution? discussions of treating vocabularies as "datasets" and the europa exampes cited in use cases provide evidence for that usage. I do agree that the issue of the subject needs further unpacking and checking - but real world objects dont have information properties - representations of them do. You could possibly remove the whole concept of a dcat:Distribution and just make statements about the accessURL - provided a) accessURLs are stable (not very likely) b) there is a 1:1 mapping of distributions and accessURLs ( i dont think this is enforced anywhere) a couple of possibilities: 1) make DCAT cataloguing of profiles more important in the profiles ontology description and perhaps even make the dcat alignment normative (i quite fancy this - because i think cataloguing profiles is a necessary implementation model) 2) more/better text about this representation pattern - try to find a non-DCAT explanation 3) rename the description and make it purely a reification of the role relationship as per your examples and try to find and illustrate another way to handle cataloguing using DCAT 4) leave as is options 2 & 3 require a fair bit more research to come up with justifications for the DCAT patterns and a compelling reason to depart (for option 3) , option 3 requires major changes i dont think that feedback so far warrants. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/769#issuecomment-466824072 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2019 22:27:35 UTC