- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:55:52 +0100
- To: Philip Ashlock - XI <philip.ashlock@gsa.gov>
- Cc: public-gld-comments <public-gld-comments@w3.org>
Hi Philip, On 10 Jun 2014, at 17:18, Philip Ashlock - XI <philip.ashlock@gsa.gov> wrote: > So are you saying an 8601 formatted recurring date would fit within the range of dctype:Frequency but only if it didn't include a start or end date? I’m concluding this simply from the description of dctype:Frequency: “A rate at which something recurs.” Something like “Monthly” is a “rate”. Something like “On the 27th of July, August and September 2014” isn’t, strictly speaking. > The requirement is both to express other frequencies than cld:Frequency as well as more precise times. I see. Let me put it this way. Nobody can stop you from using any value you’d like with dcterms:accrualPeriodicity. The interesting question though is if you will see interoperability. There’s a good chance that another DCAT user who understands accrualPeriodicity would understand the cld:Frequency values, because they are sort of the obvious values to use with these properties. The chance that they would understand the ISO 8601 values would be lower. If those ISO 8601 values include not just a frequency but also a start and/or end date, then they might even be confused, because that’s not what you’d expect from reading the description of accrualPeriodicity and dcterms:Frequency. Therefore, in that case, it’s probably best to use a different property. You might have to define that property yourself if nothing suitable exists out there. Best, Richard > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > Hi Philip, > > On 9 Jun 2014, at 23:22, Philip Ashlock - XI <philip.ashlock@gsa.gov> wrote: > > > As far as I can tell accrualPeriodicity is limited to the predefined terms for frequency http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/frequency/ > > I don’t think that’s the case. The range of dcterms:accrualPeriodicity is dctype:Frequency. It doesn’t follow that values are limited to cld:Frequency. > > (However, I do agree that a recurring interval with a start date is out of range for dctype:Frequency.) > > > Are there any existing terms that could be used in place of accrualPeriodicity using 8601 recurring interval syntax for more flexibility? > > I’m not aware of anything suitable. > > What is the requirement here? Express other frequencies besides those in cld:Frequency? Or express the precise time (e.g., not just monthly, but monthly on the 10th)? > > Best, > Richard > > > > -- > Philip Ashlock > Chief Architect, Data.gov > U.S. General Services Administration
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 16:56:19 UTC