- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 18:47:32 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@matthiaspalmer Thanks for the detailed information of your solution. Not questioning at all that this approach fits your needs and the needs of your data providers, I am still a bit uneasy about all the different variants. Section [12.3](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#dataset-series-before-dcat3) in DCAT3 mentions two 'legacy' approaches: 1. The dataset series is typed as a `dcat:Dataset`, whereas its child datasets are typed as `dcat:Distribution`'s. 2. Both the dataset series and its child datasets are typed as a `dcat:Dataset`'s, and the two are usually linked by using the [DCTERMS] properties `dcterms:hasPart` / `dcterms:isPartOf`. You now outline yet another approach. One of the main problems I see with all these different solutions is that, while they obviously make absolute sense for data providers in a particular environment, it makes it very hard for data consumers to understand what is happening. It seems to me that a data harvester needs to program quite a bit of logic to process these various approaches, and then still needs to do something smart to present data from various source in a coherent way. As far as I see it, the approach with dcat:DataSeries tries to create a more coherent and widely interoperable approach so that life becomes a lot easier for data consumers. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1429#issuecomment-987060454 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 6 December 2021 18:47:34 UTC