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

@rob-metalinkage 

I think your make things even more confusing:
> 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 my opinion, your statement implying that the "thing" is a "non-information resource" is incorrect. The "thing" being described in the metadata statements associated with a `dcat:CatalogRecord` is the set of metadata statements associated with the `dcat:Dataset`; see my diagram at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1130#issuecomment-549059325. By the way, as far as I am aware, the terminology of "non-information resource" versus "information resource" was quietly abandoned because it only created more confusion. For example, you seem to imply that a dataset is a non-information resource which I think is contrary to what the people who invented the terminology would say.

I would strongly object to your opinion that it is OK to assume that a statement about a set of metadata statements says something about the thing that the metadata describes. If I say that my name conforms to a naming rule in the country I was born in, i.e. one or more given names and one family name, does that mean I, the person, conform to the naming rule? Of course not. 

What matters is the thing the metadata describes, and it doesn't really matter whether that is a physical thing or an idea or a set of metadata statements. 


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1130#issuecomment-552371650 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 11 November 2019 09:52:55 UTC