Re: [dxwg] Inconsistency between usage note of dcat:themeTaxonomy and range of dcat:theme? (#1153)


> @kcoyle yes removing the range of dcat:theme (and keeping it merely as an 'expected range' in a usage note) could be an option.

From my memory of the GLD WG that developed DCAT version 2014, the idea behind `dcat:theme` was that its super-property `dct:subject` was too broad because it allowed any `rdfs:Resource` to be a subject, including people, places and, indeed, paintings. It was felt that it was necessary to restrict the objects to just instances of `skos:Concept`. If we now want to remove the restriction, and allow `dcat:theme` to have anything as its object, it becomes identical to `dct:subject` and then `dcat:theme` doesn't make much sense as it becomes a duplicate of the same thing.

As the idea was to restrict the range of `dcat:theme` explicitly to `skos:Concept`, it also made sense to restrict the range of `dcat:themeTaxonomy` to `skos:ConceptScheme`. The relaxation of the range of `dcat:themeTaxonomy` to `rdfs:Resource`, in my mind, is not helpful -- although it doesn't hurt either. 

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

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2019 09:56:32 UTC