RE: DCAT comments

Fadi,

Thanks for the link to the change history. I had not seen that.

Two worries:

1. v:VCard to v:Kind

What does this change do to the published specifications of ADMS and
DCAT-AP. I must admit I do not fully understand the statement that
v:VCard and v:Kind are equivalent classes. Does this mean that
implementations that use the old version (class v:VCard, properties
v:email, v:telephone etc.) will still be compliant? If so, then I see no
problem.

2. Usage note for dataset language

My worry is that the usage note recommends one particular model that may
not be optimal in all cases. During the development of ADMS several
models were considered, and in the end the ADMS WG decided to
distinguish different language versions on the Asset/Dataset level, not
on the Distribution level. There were both theoretical and practical
arguments for that decision. To me, the multilingual issue is related to
the versioning discussion as both are special cases of the more general
modelling of relationships between Datasets, which DCAT currently does
not cover.

Makx.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fadi Maali [mailto:fadi.maali@deri.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:39 AM
> To: Makx Dekkers
> Cc: Public GLD WG
> Subject: Re: DCAT comments
> 
> Hello Makx,
> 
> The changes applied are all editorial and do not change compliance
> specification of DCAT.
> The changes are summarised at: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-
> file/default/dcat/index.html#change-history
> 
> Can you please be more specific regarding which changes might
> contradict with the DCAT-AP or need more discussion?
> 
> Regards,
> Fadi Maali
> --------------------------------------------------
> Fadi Maali
> PhD student @ Insight Galway (formerly DERI)
> Irish Research Council Embark Scholarship holder
> http://www.deri.ie/users/fadi-maali
> 
> On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:17, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am trying to get my head around some of the proposed changes to
> DCAT
> > in response to comments made on the second call working draft.
> >
> > Some changes proposed are minor editorial changes, but I also see
> some
> > changes that are bigger (changing properties and introducing
> additional
> > modelling).
> >
> > I am concerned that some of those changes, if applied, could make
> the
> > DCAT application profile for data portals in Europe
> >
> (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_rele
> as
> > e/dcat-application-profile-data-portals-europe-final) non-compliant.
> > That profile was agreed among representatives of many European data
> > portals and was published in the understanding that a second last
> call
> > would only lead to minor editorial changes.
> >
> > Although I might not disagree with the need for additional modelling
> > (after all, some of that additional modelling was done for in ADMS -
> -
> > e.g. versioning, translations), I would hate to see those model
> changes
> > invalidate both ADMS and DCAT-AP.
> >
> > Overall, I think that some of the changes that are being proposed
> need
> > more discussion.
> >
> > Makx.
> >
> >

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 11:54:15 UTC