- From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:18:29 -0400
- To: John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
John makes a great argument for the second approach. That is how we tend to think of it. As with most DCAT-related questions, start with "DCAT is like 'Dublin Core' for datasets." In other words, general purpose, good for starters, accommodates refinements... John On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:59 AM, John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > Following discussion with colleagues, I would like to ask for opinions on > semantics of dcat:Dataset and void:Dataset. > > > > We have two points of view. > > > > First, the RDF version of a dcat:Dataset is a dcat:distribution of that > dataset and is itself a void:Dataset. > > That could be represented as follows: > > > > <my-dataset> a dcat:Dataset ; > > dcat:distribution <my-rdf-dataset> ; > > . > > <my-rdf-dataset> a dcat:Distribution , void:Dataset ; > > void:sparqlEndpoint <sparql> ; > > void:dataDump <my-dataset.rdf>, <my-dataset.ttl> ; > > . > > > > Secondly that a dcat:Dataset that is available as RDF (and possibly other > forms) is also a void:Dataset. > > Or to put it another way: void:Dataset rdfs:subClassOf dcat:Dataset. > > That could be represented as follows: > > > > <my-dataset> a dcat:Dataset, void:Dataset ; > > dcat:distribution <my-sparql-distribution>, <my-rdfxml-distribution>, > <my-turtle-distribution>; > > void:sparqlEndpoint <sparql> ; > > void:dataDump <my-dataset.rdf>, <my-dataset.ttl> ; > > . > > <my-sparql-distribution> a dcat:Distribution ; > > dcat:accessURL <sparql> ; > > . > > <my-rdfxml-distribution> a dcat:Distribution ; > > dcat:downloadURL <my-dataset.rdf> ; > > dcat:mediaType "application/rdf+xml" > > . > > <my-turtle-distribution> a dcat:Distribution ; > > dcat:downloadURL <my-dataset.ttl> ; > > dcat:mediaType "text/turtle" > > . > > > > I’m trying to keep an open mind, but leaning towards the second method as > thinking of the SPARQL endpoint, dumps and crawlable linked data (plus other > forms such as an API or WFS endpoint) as different distributions of the same > dataset seems to fit better with the spirit of DCAT (at least to my > interpretation of the recommendation). > > > > Thoughts welcome! > > > > Regards, > > John -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. Director of Operations, The Rensselaer IDEA Deputy Director, Web Science Research Center (RPI) <http://idea.rpi.edu/> <olyerickson@gmail.com> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2017 14:19:03 UTC