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 11:57:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqpwNTpgNPBhM_=vxPfneXHyaA86JjvVOA1HmNUABdvwHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Penny Labropoulou <penny@ilsp.gr>
Cc: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, public-ld4lt@w3.org
Hi Penny,

The mappings does not replace any existing properties, simply adding new
ones to make the datasets queriable using the DCAT vocabulary, hence adding
Dataset to all the language resources. The metashare vocabulary still seems
to be a bit messy with Services, but for the data I currently have no
services are declared so I am not so worried about the mappings.

foaf:primaryTopic is the property used by DCAT to link a catalog record to
a dataset, which also seems bizarre to me but is the standard.

Regards,
John

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Penny Labropoulou <penny@ilsp.gr> wrote:

> Hi John and all!
>
>
>
> Maybe the confusion comes from me, sorry for that: I thought the two
> documents were complimentary, with the wiki providing the principles for
> the mapping and the spreadsheet including the detailed mapping. So, I
> decided to put in the wiki the rationale and (since I though the mapping
> was under discussion) check the detailed spreadsheet once the general
> decision was made; I had already added some comments inside the
> spreadsheet. Anyway, do I have time to send in some comments for the final
> mapping by tomorrow?
>
> BTW, I 'm not sure what the mapping of the various ms.BabelNet,
> ms.ComputationalLexicon etc. to dcat.Dataset is: are they going to be
> subclasses of dcat:dataset or replaced by it or ???? There's an ongoing
> discussion as regards the mapping of ms:LanguageResource to dcat:Dataset as
> there's an overlap between them.
>
>
>
> And I was having a better look at the licensing module to make sure all
> the MS elements are there and correctly mapped to odrl and other
> vocabularies; is this ok?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Penny
>
>
>
> BTW, I had a quick look at the github and I think there are some
> "copy-and-paste" errors – e.g. in the mapping of MS.metadataCreationDate I
> see FOAF.primaryTopic as well as the dct.issued.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *John
> P. McCrae
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:55 AM
> *To:* Penny Labropoulou
> *Cc:* Dave Lewis; public-ld4lt@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ACTION 11] Initial DCAT to meta-share mapping
>
>
>
> 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 09:57:39 UTC

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