Re: [dxwg] definitions clarifications of conforms to (#1130)

@all thanks for the feedback.

Taking the examples, which clarified the intention,  by @makxdekkers 


> So maybe we all agree and we are confusing ourselves.
> If we go back to the question @bertvannuffelen asked, I think the answer is that
> `ex:catalogRecordX dct:conformsTo ex:metadataprofileP` says that the metadata for the dataset conforms to some metadata profile (e.g. GeoDCAT-AP)
The scope of this statement is the dcat:Resource (because it catalogrecord points to dcat:Resource) and its related distributions. Does the scope include the metadata of the catalog to which the the catalogrecord belongs?  If so then the remark is relevant. @makxdekkers states in a respons not.
Observe that this scope is different in the examples below.

> `ex:datasetY dct:conformsTo ex:implementingrulesQ` says that the dataset conforms to some set of rules (e.g. about how data was collected, what quality process was applied etc.)
The scope of this statement is the dcat:Resource it is subject of.

> `ex:distributionZ dct:conformsTo ex:datastructureR` says that the data in the distribution conformsTo some datastructure specification (e.g. SDMX for statistical data)
The scope of this statement is the dcat:distribution it is subject of.

The additional example to be taken into account is: 
`ex:catalog dct:conformsTo ex:standard` says that the ....

 Can you complete here the sentence? Is that GeoDCAT-AP? or is that another document and explicitly NOT a DCAT profile?

According to the sharing of that property through dcat:Resource its scope must be only the catalog it is subject of. Since a profile as GeoDCAT-AP is an expression about all entities refering to GeoDCAT-AP in the conforms-to would naturally lead to the interpretation that the whole catalog follows GeoDCAT-AP.
But that is not true according to the scope I wrote.

Although the examples make things a lot clearer, one can see that the current definitions leave room for different interpretations. 

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

Received on Monday, 4 November 2019 08:44:31 UTC