- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 13:22:22 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@bertvannuffelen I have no problem if we want to make it explicit that specific types of data should be modelled as sub-classes of `dcat:Resource`. What I think we can't do is formalise what you call your 'mind set' for `dcat:Dataset` by narrowing down the definition, as this could potentially break existing implementations. Those implementations were developed before the mechanism of subclassing `dcat:Resource` was available so we can't penalise them for interpreting the scope of `dcat:Dataset` liberally. What I remember is that we found out in the development of DCAT 2014 that it was quite hard to define the types of collections of data that should be in scope -- for example, is it limited to numerical data in an n-dimension grid (i.e. the spreadsheet paradigm) or can you have other types of observations/data points, what about data underlying maps, what about sound snippets used in language research, image collections etc. etc. There is a large grey area in the mind set of many people, and these mind sets may not always be well aligned. So the best we could do at the time was to leave it open. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221#issuecomment-595765154 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 6 March 2020 13:22:24 UTC