- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:24:34 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Another option is to diverge from the model, keep the existing approach and do a transform when exposing to the European data portal, but this seems suboptimal. The way I see it, there are two sides to this: 1. if data providers all do their own thing, i.e. create metadata according to their own interpretation of a standard, the burden of converting the various approaches to something coherent lies with the data consumer 2. if data providers, doing their own thing locally, map their interpretation to a common interoperable approach, the data consumer can rely on receiving consistent metadata from anywhere. It might be that option 2 is the most efficient as the data provider has all the information about both the internal approach and the common interoperable approach and therefore can make the best mapping. In option 1, the data consumer might wonder what the purpose of using a standard is, if all data providers do things their own way in any case. The data consumer would need to keep knowledge of all existing variants to be able to process the information. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1429#issuecomment-987681418 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2021 08:24:36 UTC