- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:41:41 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Just a word of warning: we seem to get into discussions about how to better define "dataset" every once in a while -- we did have a long discussion during development of DCAT2014 -- and we have never found a better one. When making it more general, allowing it to be anything at all, i.e. indistinguishable from `rdfs:Resource`, we lose the idea that someone should have responsibility for it, which I think is not a good idea. When trying to make it more specific, we usually end up with someone mentioning a kind of data that falls outside the proposed definition but could still be described as a dataset. In this particular case, suggesting that there is a data model that underlies the data, what about if there is no model, e.g. for unstructured data or raw data? We run the risk of then having to agree what we mean by data model. And the sentence "_the content (in the abstract sense - not in the sense of syntactic representation or access mechanism) in such cases was equal_" actually describes the consensus about the relationships between the distributions of a dataset, although we relaxed it a bit by not requiring full information equivalence in all cases. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1195#issuecomment-578059292 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 24 January 2020 09:41:42 UTC