Re: [dxwg] Service vs endpoint (#1242)

I think there is an inherent problem with scoping a general property like dct:conformsTo to a specific range - the identifiers of protocol APIs.

Taking on board the multiple different pieces of information identified as required for the user story (independent of the priority assumed), it would appear that the requirement is for one of :

1) dct:conformsTo be multivalued, and the objects support a type query to work out which value relates to which aspect
2) sub-properties of dct:conformsTo for specific aspects
3) range of dct:conformsTo to be an qualified association object that describes different aspects
4) range of dct:conformsTo to be a canonical model for a composite specification capable of describing all aspects
5) do nothing and leave users none the wiser about what dct:conformsTo might actually mean
6) continue to restrict semantics of dct:conformsTo to API identifiers and formally publish DCAT as a profile of dcterms to give this restriction and its relationship to dcterms machine readable home. (leaving users none the wiser about the other aspects)
7) something else?

This is orthogonal AFAICT from the DataService vs. Distribution matter - except that for a distribution being a HTTP downloadable link a sepcial property with these semantics is deemed necessary, but that won't scale to all possible APIs and data model combinations..

GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2021 00:44:54 UTC