Re: dct:language range WAS: ISSUE-2 (olyerickson): dct:language should be added to DCAT [Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data]

John, all,

On 9 December 2011 20:43, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to Richard's point.
>
> I am extremely concerned about over-specifying this (or any) DCAT
> field. In my view it should be possible for "entry level" adopters to
> implement sensible DCAT without a deep understanding of RDF/RDFS/etc.
>
> If a provider wishes to only specify the language(s) of their catalogs
> using literals (for example), that should be good enough (and should
> be the minimum). If a more sophisticated provider prefers to and is
> able to do this less ambiguously using URIs, etc, we should enable
> this as well (but not require it).

If you are thinking of entries such as "15th c. English" and such, I
agree that that cannot be easily captured in its most general and
unrestricted form. But it would still be interesting, LOD-wise, to
have the "English" bit as structured data, possibly qualified in
free-text as "13th c. English". So we still need to decide on a
controlled vocabulary that includes a representation for "English"
even if it does not include one for "15th c. English".

s

Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 22:31:31 UTC