- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 23:27:55 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I think @bertvannuffelen and @makxdekkers are talking at cross-purposes here - I dont think there is any debate aboiut the rdfs:range of dct:conformsTo - and @dr-shorthair is right in saying that constraining this is a matter for profiles of DCAT The semantics issue is about the how the property relates to the subject - the rdfs:domain - which dct:conformsTo does not bound. If the subject is a proxy for the thing (i.e. a non-information resource) - and the metadata graph is an information resource representing the thing (but not the thing itself) then it seems OK to use the common practice of saying that the statement dct:conformsTo is about the thing being identified - not the representation. In some ways making the CatalogRecord into a separate entity is confusing unless you think of of it as one of many possible representations of the underlying thing - its cataloguing metadata. AFAICT an implementation pattern whereby the dcat:CatalogRecord and dcat:Dataset are both well-known profiles of the identified thing (the real world dataset) and accessible by conneg-by-ap would highlight the subtle differences here, and be consistent with the DCAT spec. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1130#issuecomment-552246525 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2019 23:27:57 UTC