- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:40:02 +0000
- To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>, 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>
And on this topic, if there are comments on the draft charter for a likely new WG that will update DCAT, now is the time to speak up :-) https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/charter/ On 14/03/2017 14:18, John Erickson wrote: > 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 > > > -- Phil Archer Data Strategist, W3C http://www.w3.org/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2017 14:40:15 UTC