W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ld4lt@w3.org > September 2014

Re: [ACTION 11] Initial DCAT to meta-share mapping

From: John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:54:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqosap47oeX005zpoGAkaCK3CsWKZ4o8TdLb0dg5mvwDwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Penny Labropoulou <penny@ilsp.gr>
Cc: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, public-ld4lt@w3.org
Hi,

There seems to be some duplication here as the metashare to DCAT mapping to
the spreadsheet here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15SE4_qAqYFostmD52uKxpkCPZh1f5TrPeoXKNTlDYpQ/edit#gid=0

Can one of the LD4LT/LIDER chairs please decide which document we are
using??

The mapping in the spreadsheet is already implemented here:

https://github.com/liderproject/metadata-harvesting/blob/master/metashare/fix_metashare.py

Regards,
John

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Penny Labropoulou <penny@ilsp.gr> wrote:

> Hi Dave and all.
> I've made some comments (in italics to easily spot) at the wiki for the
> MetaShare to DCAT mapping. Please, note the following:
> - the proposal looks only at dcat:dataset and dcat:distribution but there
> are also dcat:catalog and dcat:catalogRecord. MetaShare has not looked at
> catalogs at all, but some of the elements can be mapped to
> dcat:catalogRecord properties. Should we look into this also?
> - Some of the comments refer to the XML implementation of MetaShare (i.e.
> elements that have not been included in the current version of MS/RDF-OWL)
> but I have added them as they will be of use for the final XML to RDF
> conversion of the original MetaShare schema.
> Best,
> Penny
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:44 PM
> To: public-ld4lt@w3.org
> Subject: [ACTION 11] Initial DCAT to meta-share mapping
>
> Hi all,
> I've made an initial analysis of how we can make use DCAT in revising the
> meta-share vocabulary at:
> https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/DCAT_MetaShare_Mapping
>
> Some points we can discuss on the call shortly:
>
> 1) classifying ms:LanguageResource as a dcat:Dataset - see:
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/DCAT_MetaShare_Mapping#Make_Language
> Resource_a_DCAT_Dataset
>
> 2) separating meta-data about the resource from meta-data about its
> accessible forms or distributions - see:
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/DCAT_MetaShare_Mapping#Separate_Lang
> uageResource_metadata_from_metadata_of_its_Accessible_Form
>
> 3) (which I haven't documented yet) is using dcat:theme attribute for
> LanguageResource properties that comply to a specific scheme or taxonomy
> using skos:concept and skos:ConceptScheme. This would make sense for
> ms:domain, but also perhaps for making explicit the subclass taxonomy
> LanguageResource, e.g. Corpus etc.
>
> Talk to you shortly,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 08:55:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:10 UTC