W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2019

Re: [dxwg] Reflect all 'Usage notes' into DCAT RDF representation (#725)

From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:07:41 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-532237273-1568729260-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I am marking this Issue as "due for closing", @kcoyle and @jakubklimek, you have been active in the discussion, I am hoping there are no strong objections from you. Please upvote if you are fine with the compromise. Thanks.

> We have separated DCAT in two ontologies. The first includes all the dcat-defined elements, the second groups all the dcat extra-annotations for third-parties vocabularies.
> 
> As far as I have understood, there is no agreement on whether to use skos:definition or skos:usageNote in the second ontology. Some of the members prefer to maintain coherence in the use of skos:definition between the two ontologies, others would replace skos:definition with skos:usageNote in the second ontology.
> 
> However, I think the above issue has lost part of the importance after splitting DCAT in two ontology. In fact, the problem impacts only the second ontology, which is an optional resource with extra annotations. It is not returned by resolving the dcat namespace and comes into play only if explicitly loaded. Users and systems that are uncomfortable with the extra definitions on third-parties terms can simply ignore the second ontology.
> 
> I think the current setting offers a good compromise between the distinct positions. So I would suggest closing this issue. Objections?



> We have separated DCAT in two ontologies. The first includes all the dcat-defined elements, the second groups all the dcat extra-annotations for third-parties vocabularies.
> 
> As far as I have understood, there is no agreement on whether to use skos:definition or skos:usageNote in the second ontology. Some of the members prefer to maintain coherence in the use of skos:definition between the two ontologies, others would replace skos:definition with skos:usageNote in the second ontology.
> 
> However, I think the above issue has lost part of the importance after splitting DCAT in two ontologies. In fact, the problem impacts only the second ontology, which is an optional resource with extra annotations. It is not returned by resolving the dcat namespace and comes into play only if explicitly loaded. Users and systems that are uncomfortable with the extra definitions on third-parties terms can simply ignore the second ontology.
> 
> I think the current setting offers a good compromise between the distinct positions. So I would suggest closing this issue. Objections?



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/725#issuecomment-532237273 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2019 14:07:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:57 UTC