- From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:38:02 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> The RDF OWA means that we can't actually force anyone to do anything. > But I agree with @agreiner that we should make a recommendation wherever possible. > At the very least we need to provide worked examples showing the preferred approach for people to emulate. > > Around 15 years ago I was involved in developing the Geography Markup Language. (Actually, several versions between 2001 and 2007). We hedged our bets and provided multiple alternative options everywhere, allowing for almost every variation that anyone asked for. **Big mistake**. It was a huge burden on data consumers (who had to be ready to accept anything) and almost no work for data providers (since they had inserted their existing model into the standard). And no-one was happy because there was just too much variation to allow data to be brought together. I learned my lesson. @dr-shorthair: I don't see any problem in recommending `owl:versionInfo` in the normative part under the class `dcat:Resource`, we can borrow terms from well-established vocabularies, similarly to what we did for dct, prov, odrl terms. If we haven't yet included the new terms in the normative part, it is mainly because we want to hear comments to consolidate the direction before embarking on a major change include modifying the DCAT schema figure. -- GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1280#issuecomment-730316177 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2020 11:38:03 UTC