- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 15:35:06 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> > In my mind, we should not try to put limits on what can be a `dcat:Dataset`. > > But then we need to change the definition. > I don't see why. The definition is sufficiently broad to encompass also software. > > If people want to describe software as a `dcat:Dataset`, no-one can stop them. > > Yeah, but no one can stop them from describing software as `ex:Mammal` either. > The question is what the DCAT spec says about applicability. Well, it would depend on the definition of ex:Mammal whether that is 'wrong' or not. The point is that it is very well possible -- and it has been done in ADMS-AP -- to consider software a `dcat:Dataset`. As far I see it, software is a type of digital resource, and I would argue it is a collection of instructions or procedures. As long as it is _published or curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or more representations_ I don't see anything in the DCAT spec that would lead to a conclusion that software would not qualify. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221#issuecomment-594606226 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2020 15:35:08 UTC