Re: ISSUE-12 (valuesForDataFormat): What values to use to describe formats of dcat:Distribution? [DCAT]

On 10 Feb 2012, at 16:27, Phil Archer wrote:
> I think I'm happiest with, again, pointing to the "this is what we mean by a stable URI scheme" in the best practices doc and then maybe giving one or two examples and finally saying that if they can't find one then "foo/bar" is a reasonable fall-back.

Can't we do better than this?

The goal is interoperability. If four catalogs use these four different ways of denoting RDF/XML:

    <http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDF/XML>
    <http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/RDF_XML>
    "RDF/XML"
    "application/rdf+xml"
    "rdf"

… then we have failed to reach the goal of interoperability.

IMO the requirements for our recommended representation of formats are:

1. Easy to convert from the de facto standard identifiers (IETF media types) to our chosen representation (ideally incl. possibility to validate)

2. Reasonably complete coverage of file formats

3. Ability to handle existing data that doesn't use a controlled vocabulary (e.g., what if you have all of “XLS”, “Excel”, “Excel 95”, “MS Office Spreadsheet” in the input data?)

4. Some recommendation for how to deal with file formats that are not registered anywhere, e.g., shapefiles

Best,
Richard


> 
> On 10/02/2012 15:51, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> 
>> Or, why not re-deploy Ed's excellent http://mediatypes.appspot.com/
>> under an W3C domain? :)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>> Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>> 
>> On 10 Feb 2012, at 15:19, Phil Archer wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm getting some push-back from gov data publishers on using DBpedia
>>> sadly (it's third party, it's not real, it's not stable, not like all
>>> our wonderful government department Web sites that sometimes stay on
>>> line for whole months!). The PROMOM effort that Dave has highlighted
>>> looks like the kind of thing they'd like more - government agency to
>>> government agency - as long as there's no ".uk" anywhere in the URIs I
>>> guess.
>>> 
>>> How about "use a stable URI scheme for file formats if available,
>>> falling back to the MIME type if not available" ?
>>> 
>>> Phil.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/02/2012 15:06, John Erickson wrote:
>>>>>> The Right Thing to do would be to get IETF to mint URIs for all media
>>>>>> types, and get ESRI to register a media type for their file format,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>> This may not be feasible.
>>>> 
>>>> ...or maybe we could just follow the same, de facto convention we've
>>>> been following of using URIs from A Certain Third party:
>>>> 
>>>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/TIFF
>>>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/JPEG
>>>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/GZIP
>>>> 
>>>> ...etc. ;)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Phil Archer
>>> W3C eGovernment
>>> http://www.w3.org/egov/
>>> 
>>> http://philarcher.org
>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> @philarcher1
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> http://www.w3.org/egov/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:04:58 UTC