W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Feedback on Dataset Schema

From: Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:38:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJgK0KFR-GfD3TgUyxmbrid7U0X35qfZqiHMXYcin4uB_qjgFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org

Couple of comments inline:

On 12 July 2012 10:39, Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net> wrote:
> ...
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Some initial feedback on the new Dataset schema description. Overall I
>> think this is a great first start that captures the essential
>> information which appears to be common across various dataset
>> description proposals, as well as in actual usage.
> I appreciate the feedback!

No problem.

>> I think its important to clarify the relationship of this proposal
>> with existing work from the Linked Data community, which has already
>> seen some adoption, in order to avoid confusion. The mapping between
>> schema elements is an important first step there. It might be useful
>> to also note in the documentation where a publisher might want to
>> support more than one approach or where another approach might offer
>> additional benefits.
> I'll add some discussion about the mapping.  It's as much a discussion
> of syntax (microdata vs. RDFa vs. Linked Data, etc.) as vocabulary.
> With schema.org microdata, there is less of a question of mixing
> vocabularies, so the mapping is more important for integration with
> other data sources than it is for choosing among alternative terms.

Yep, understood.

> ...
>> It might also be useful to indicate the time period to
>> which the dataset applies, e.g. census data for UK for 1901.
> Yes.  DCAT uses dc:temporal, and I have been leaning towards pulling
> it into the extension (e.g. using schema.org's Duration type and ISO
> 8601 time intervals).  Now leaning a little harder.

OK, great. Really useful for statistical data I think.

> ...
>> I note that the table in the wiki refers to ds:license but this is not
>> called out anywhere.
> Currently, the idea is simply to point to a WebPage about the license,
> but I'm open to other suggestions.

I think thats probably sufficient. Most licenses have a clear
destination page. Would be nice to have the property documented and an
example added.

>> Does a generic license property apply to the
>> Dataset schema or is there a more general term?
> Well, not to the schema, but to the data...

Sorry, I realise my comment wasn't clear. I meant: should a generic
license property be part of core schema.org, e.g. as a property of
CreativeWork, rather than be specific to this extension?

>> License might usefully
>> be captured as an enumeration of, e.g. Creative Commons and Open
>> Government licenses.
> This sounds like a job for a License extension.  Any takers?  At
> present, the closest equivalent appears to be the copyrightHolder and
> copyrightYear properties.

Yes, perhaps that's the best option. There's already a general
licensing vocabulary created by the Creative Commons, perhaps that
would be a suitable basis for such an extension?

> ...
>> As well as a short description,
>> pointers to fuller documentation are also useful.
> Still thinking inside the schema.org box, discussionUrl might do the
> trick, but now I'm making things up.  Will have to think about the
> best way to express this.

I think discussionUrl would be useful *as well* but a page to say how
a dataset was collated or is curated might be a useful addition to the
description. Would just be a page about the dataset.

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 10:39:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:47 UTC