- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:24:57 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I am very much in favour of specifying the DCAT approach to definition. Granted, DCAT shouldn't constraint publishers some specific details like the granularity of a new version (i.e. which data changes should lead to the production of a new version). But as you write, "version" in general can include notions like 'editions, adaptations' and this would go too far. In this respect I think the new additions from PR #1295 are useful! I am wondering whether they could be made more precise though: it's all in one sentence "versions resulting from a revision - i.e., from changes occurring to a resource as part of its life-cycle.". There is an implicit acknowledgement that time plays a role, but 'life-cycle' may still include 'adaptations'... Maybe the temporal aspect could be reinforced by bringing 'history' in the intro? And 'release', too? By the way (and maybe this is a closely related issue) DCAT provides elements to describe releases, but the section on versioning is not very explicit on whether a new release is expected to be a new version. Again I reckon DCAT should remain generic, but I think it could feature a guideline that says that a new release of a resource would typically lead to the creation of a new version. This could otherwise result in inconsistencies in DCAT metadata, couldn't it? (that is, at least for the data publishers who would care about versioning). -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1277#issuecomment-784557124 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2021 22:24:59 UTC