- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 09:00:35 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@bertvannuffelen I understand what you're proposing. It's just that I don't think we should be in the business of telling people what to do. My main worry is that if we describe what this group -- consisting of a very small set of stakeholders -- sees as the intention of the vocabulary, there might be people that have data collections that could benefit from DCAT, who might read that intention and decide to develop their own vocabulary. So it depends on perspective: 1. If you don't want people to use DCAT for things that you think are not in its scope, you try to define the scope more precisely; in doing so, you encourage those people to go away and develop something else. 2. If, on the other hand, you don't want that people who could use DCAT for their data collection, do not use it because of a narrow scope, you define the scope liberally; that way you encourage as many people as possible to use DCAT and avoid the proliferation of vocabularies. I am definitely in the second camp. In my opinion, that creates more interoperability, not less, because all the various types of data collections would use the same vocabulary -- probably with extensions and profiling -- and might benefit from the same catalogue management software and processes. If I understand correctly, this was the approach mentioned by @andrea-perego. To me that makes more sense than narrowing the scope. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1221#issuecomment-596407300 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 9 March 2020 09:00:41 UTC