Re: ISSUE-36 (Kill Radion?): Should RADion be killed off? [DCAT]

On 27/09/12 13:15, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker
> Killing it off means:

[In focussing here I'm not advocating this option, just seeking to 
understand.]

> - no visible relationship between two vocabularies that have a great deal in common being published by the same WG;

Does it?  If there are only three classes and each has a counterpart in 
dcat then could the ADMS classes be subClasses of the dcat ones?

> - removing all references to RADion in ADMS (remember ADMS has implementations already, hence people screaming for the RADion schema to be put in place);

> - replacing the RADion properties used by ADMS directly (like radion:distribution) with dcat versions such as dcat:distribution. An example of the impact there is that it would mean adding a new range statement as it currently has a range of dcat:Distribution - is having two ranges for a property a good thing?;

If the corresponding adms class were subClassOf dcat:Distribution then 
no additional range declaration would be required.

There is no problem with a property have multiple range statements, but 
it does have a well defined semantics (that the effective range is the 
intersection of the two stated ranges). Whether that is a problem 
depends on what makes the adms class different from a dcat:Distribution.

Dave

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:36:54 UTC