- From: bertvannuffelen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:11:09 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> > 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. It is not about penalizing existing implementations. But at the same time, existing implementations could now reconsider that choice. Other-way around, it is not because somewhere somebody created a catalogue of e.g. vehicles using dcat:Dataset, that DCAT must accept this as a good and desired practice. I hope that a vocabulary community has the freedom to state about implementations that the application of the vocabulary is not as intended. Unfortunately, here in this case, we hit the issue that the definition of dcat:Dataset can be interpreted to be anything. So even my last example of vehicles cannot be excluded. ;-) > > 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. I agree it is grey area. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bertvannuffelen Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221#issuecomment-595784433 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 6 March 2020 14:11:12 UTC