- From: Daniel Garijo via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:45:34 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@makxdekkers, I think the rationale for the reluctance is a little bit mixed. On the one hand some people in our group feel like calling/extending everything from a `Dataset` is a little unnatural (however, they are ok with using Resource). And looking into the concrete definitions, it is not clear whether there is a big difference between dcat:Resource and dcat:Dataset, as I elaborated above. On the other hand, there are some Dataset properties that would not be used. Yes, we can add a new type and just not use those properties, but it is not very practical to have them. As an intermediate solution I have proposed extending Resource and using distribution, which would essentially make our profile an implicit extension of Dataset without explicitly asserting it. I think that the DCAT standard should probably motivate why is it important to have Resources and Datasets and why these concepts are different by definition. For example, with examples on why a dcat:Resource may not be necessarily a dcat:Dataset. I see no interoperability issues, because if at some point you want to interoperate with any of those services, we can issue a construct query adding the corresponding dctypes. But I think this point is another discussion. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dgarijo Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1576#issuecomment-1655294924 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 28 July 2023 08:45:36 UTC