- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 16:13:51 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@RubenVerborgh Yes, every discussion that I've seen over the years always ended up with the conclusion that, yes, any digital resource qualifies as long as there is someone (person, group, organisation) that publishes and curates it. Information published as HTML files or PDFs, images represented as JPEGs or PNGs, music encoded in MP3, tables and spreadsheets published in Excel or CSV, basically anything goes. The conclusion has always been that we either leave it very broad, or we need to draw the boundaries in such a way that it is completely clear what is in and what is out. I remember spending a lot of time on that discussion several times and we have never been able to agree on those boundaries. Now, the situation is that DCAT has been around for six years with the 'vague' definition, and narrowing down the definition could potential break implementations, in case people have interpreted the definition in a liberal way. So rather than posing the question "_what [do] we gain by including software, JPEG, etc. into the definition of dataset?_", what we should be asking is "_what do we gain by retrospectively narrowing the definition of dataset to exclude certain types of digital objects?_". I have said it before and I'll say it again: let's not go there -- we can argue for a long time, like we've done in the past, and in the end, in my humble opinion, it's not going to make things any better. Good is good enough. Let's work with what we have. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221#issuecomment-594636025 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2020 16:13:53 UTC