- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:34:08 +0200
- To: public-gld-comments@w3.org
- Message-id: <CAHzfgWBiTzC8fsT_ePqYP4Oe9T4bVQbdDV2eZ3cj3icYQAj8vg@mail.gmail.com>
I would like to ask the GLD WG a clarification concerning the actual scope of DCAT. Basically, the question concerns whether DCAT can be used to describe 1. catalogues of a specific type of information resources, namely, datasets. or 2. catalogues of any type of information resources (e.g., datasets, documents, data models, vocabularies, thesauri, code lists, audio and video files, software, services). I have always thought that the right option was the former one, and this seems to be confirmed by the definitions and terminology used in the DCAT spec. However, I had some concerns when I realised that ADMS has been recently defined as a DCAT profile for semantic assets [1], Based on this, I wondered whether the DCAT notion of "dataset" was broader than the "common" one. My question is also about how DCAT can be actually used in existing catalogues, e.g., those providing access to government resources. Although the majority of them are just about datasets, several examples are available of gov portals of other types of information resources (e.g., software re-usable by Public Administrations) or even of heterogeneous types of information resources. An example of the latter is the INSPIRE Geoportal [2], which provides a single access point for geospatial datasets, dataset series, and services of EU Member States. In both the cases above, if DCAT is just about datasets, it could not be used to describe the catalogue, the totality of the resources it gives access to, and the corresponding distributions. Actually, in INSPIRE, DCAT could be used to describe datasets, maybe also dataset series, and their distributions, but neither services nor their distributions, and not the catalogue itself. As a consequence, specific vocabularies should be defined to denote catalogues and distributions of resource types different from datasets. And this would not help interoperability. So, I wonder whether the GLD WG would consider making dcat:Catalog and dcat:Distribution more generic, namely, a catalog / distribution of any type of information resources, and not just of datasets. If this is already foreseen, i.e., if DCAT is for catalogues of any type of information resources, I would suggest making this explicit in the spec. It would be also useful to have an additional class, denoting information resources available in a catalogue, and to define dcat:Dataset a subclass of it. Thanks in advance. Andrea ---- [1]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html [2]http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/ -- Andrea Perego, Ph.D. European Commission DG JRC Institute for Environment & Sustainability Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 21027 Ispra VA, Italy DE+RD Unit: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DE ---- The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2013 20:34:53 UTC