Re: [DCAT] accessURLs vs downloadURLs

Hello Luke,

I am writing to you a formal response for the comment you provided on the relationship between dcat:accessURL and dcat:downloadURL.

That's right, a downloadURL is a legal accessURL, but we don't want to enforce that as an entailment. Profiles of dcat may, for example, wish to impose a stronger separation where they only use accessURL for non-download locations, and we don't want to preclude such usage. We'll clarify the editorial text.

Would you please let us know whether you are fine with the response?

Best regards,
Fadi Maali

--------------------------------------------------
Fadi Maali
PhD student @ Insight Galway (formerly DERI)
Irish Research Council Embark Scholarship holder
http://www.deri.ie/users/fadi-maali

On 6 Nov 2013, at 22:54, Luke Blaney <w3.mailing_lists@lukeblaney.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>     I've just come across the Candidate Recommendation for DCAT.  It's the first I'd heard of DCAT and I wanted to give a bit of feedback (I don't know a great deal about the W3C process, hopefully CR doesn't mean it's too late).
> 
> The main thing I noticed was the ambiguity between accessURLs and downloadURLs.   I think any spec which contains the words "...when you are not sure whether it is" could do with more clarification.
> Does a downloadURL need to contain the entire dataset, or is it permissible to specify multiple downloadURLs, each containing part of the dataset?  For example, if a dataset contains 3 tables, each downloadable as a separate CSV, can the links to all three be added as downloadURLs?
> The definition of accessURL seems like it could be interpreted to include direct downloads.  Does this mean that downloadURL is a subProperty of accessURL?  If it is, it'd be nice to have an rdfs:subPropertyOf relationship in there.  If it isn't, then perhaps the definition of accessURL needs to make this explicit.
> 
> Other than that, I found the inclusion of rdfs:domain on Properties quite inconsistent.  In my view, all rdfs:Properties should have rdfs:domain and rdfs:range specified.
> 
> Also, http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl doesn't seem to match everything at http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/  Is there an up-to-date version of the ontology in RDF?
> 
> Regards,
>     Luke Blaney
> 
> P.S. Well done on linking out to other ontologies for existing concepts.  I've noticed a worrying trend recently of people minting their own concepts for everything.

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 14:36:21 UTC