- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 10:14:55 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Is this reluctance to describe things like ontologies as `dcat:Dataset` philopophical or practical? By practical I mean, if you were to define a new subclass of `dcat:Resource` (which I think the specification recommends), would the set of properties be very different from the set of properties defined for `dcat:Dataset`? So different that it can't be handled by a type and use of only a few properties? You already want to use `dcat:distribution` and other properties may not be relevant, but there is no obligation to use them. I see two issues to do with interoperability: 1. some people are already describing the things you work on as `dcat:Dataset`, using the Controlled Vocabulary for [Dataset type](https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/dataset/-/resource?uri=http://publications.europa.eu/resource/dataset/dataset-type) of the Publications Office of the EU. 2. As far as I know, most implementations of DCAT store and exchange descriptions of datasets and probably none of them process `dcat:Resource`s It is my worry that by doing things differently, your work is going to be in a different silo from other implementations, making it harder to achieve interoperability. But of course, interoperability with others outside your group may not be a crucial requirement in your case. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1576#issuecomment-1645346430 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 21 July 2023 10:14:57 UTC