- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:19:41 +0100
- To: Maik Riechert <m.riechert@reading.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
Hi, Maik. On 03/02/2016 10:43, Maik Riechert wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > Interesting points, exactly what I wanted to talk about. > > I tried to have spatial partitioning in scenario 3 for example, but I > just see that github swallowed some of my <varname> notations, I'll fix > that to make it clearer. But in the end it's similar to temporal > partitioning, just a different dimension. Indeed. > Now, about modeling subsets as distributions. Currently, this is a no-go > for me since you cannot indicate the subset extent (temporal, spatial, > ..) inside a distribution element. Basically the same opinion as comment > #2 in your linked page. > > Having said that, I agree that it would be way more convenient to manage > as distributions, on many levels. But, then someone has to step up and > define that I can use dct:temporal and dct:spatial (as defined in > GeoDCAT-AP) within a Distribution. Of course you can do that already, > but no one cares and it will be ignored because it is not recommended > anywhere. Well, this can be a job for both the DWBP and SDW WGs. Moreover, work just started to develop implementation guidelines for DCAT-AP, and this issue could be addressed also there (see the relevant issue [1]). > That still doesn't solve partitioning across other dimension types, but > it is a start and should work for the majority of datasets. I agree. Cheers, Andrea ---- [1]https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat-ap_implementation_guidelines/issue/mi2-dataset-series
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 10:20:34 UTC