Fwd: dcat:dataset - is it not dcterms:hasPart ?

(sending again as I forgot to CC the mailing list)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fadi Maali <fadi.maali@deri.org>
> Subject: Re: dcat:dataset - is it not dcterms:hasPart ?
> Date: 2 May 2013 13:12:45 IST
> To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> 
> Hello Tim,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!
> 
> The reason behind defining dcat:dataset and not using dcterms:hasPart is to be able to restrict the domain and the range of the property (i.e. we limit the domain to dcat:Catalog and the range to dcat:Dataset).
> We can't "hijack" dcterms and restrict its properties domain and range.
> 
> It was suggested to define dcat:dataset as sub property of dcterms:hasPart and I created an issue for that: https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/66
> 
> Do you think this address your needs?
> 
> Thanks & regards,
> Fadi
> --------------------------------------------------
> Fadi Maali
> PhD student @ DERI
> Irish Research Council Embark Scholarship holder
> http://www.deri.ie/users/fadi-maali
> 
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 19:29, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> GLD,
>> 
>> Although your Last Call period has finished, I was curious why you chose to invent dcat:dataset when it seems that Dublin Core provides adequate coverage:
>> 
>> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf
>> "A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included."
>> 
>> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart
>> "A related resource that is included either physically or logically in the described resource."
>> 
>> I would much prefer to query by reusing existing and well-established vocabulary, e.g.
>> 
>> SELECT ?dataset 
>> WHERE {
>> <your-catalog> 
>>    a dcat:Catalog;
>>    dcterms:hasPart ?dataset .
>> 
>> ?dataset a dcat:Dataset .
>> }
>> 
>> Thanks for your consideration.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tim Lebo
>

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:14:27 UTC