Re: [dxwg] vCard and FOAF? (#955)

I have no strong feeling about using or not interchangeably FOAF and vCard, although there may be some concerns in terms of backward compatibility for DCAT - as already mentioned by @jakubklimek 

On a related note (and maybe not completely relevant to solve this issue), I include below some considerations about the use of `dcat:contactPoint`, that could be relevant to the problem reported by @ltrani:

Based on my experience, authors and contact points should ideally be different. The reason why you add a contact point, is to indicate a "contact" which is stable in the mid-/long-term, whereas authors are included for other purposes - e.g., attribution. Looking, e.g., at scientific data (which is where dataset authors are more likely to be indicated compared with government data), since research teams are frequently changing, the most "stable" contact point is the "team", not the single scientist.

We saw this also in the work on the JRC Data Catalogue, where the recommendation is to specify a functional / team mailbox as a contact point, and not the one of an individual.

Always  taking as example the JRC Data Catalogue, another thing we realised is that what is really and only needed for the contact point is either an email address or the URL of a contact page. Other information, besides being not of very much use, has the risk of becoming obsolete (postal address, the name of the contact point, etc. may change over time, and people forget to update it). Based on that, we have also been seriously thinking to simplify the specification of the contact point by removing all the unnecessary statements (including `rdf:type`), and using the email / contact page as the object of `dct:contactPoint` - e.g.:

a:Dataset a dcat:Dataset ;
  dcat:contactPoint <> ;

GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 22 June 2019 22:43:34 UTC