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

On 27/09/12 14:24, Phil Archer wrote:
>
>
> On 27/09/2012 13:36, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I'm not sure it's right to make adms:SemanticAsset a sub class of
> dcat:Dataset although I see the attractiveness of the option.
>
> Being less abstract, saying that adms:SemanticAsset is a subclass of
> dcat:Dataset means we're saying that:
>
> 1. all vocabularies and ontologies are datasets;
> 2. all controlled vocabularies like ISO country codes are datasets;
> 3. all standards by the likes of W3C and OASIS are datasets;
> 4. government guidelines like eGIF are datasets.
>
> 1 and 2 feel just about OK. 3 & 4 feel wrong.
>
> One way out might be to broaden the scope of dcat:Dataset but that again
> feels wrong and I can hear understandable cries of anguish coming from
> Galway at the very idea.

OK. What about the other way round. Are all datasets semantic assets?

Dave

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:28:15 UTC