- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 10:39:52 +0000
- To: Cristiano Longo <longo@dmi.unict.it>
- Cc: "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "<fadi.maali@deri.org>" <fadi.maali@deri.org>, "<vassilios.peristeras@deri.org>" <vassilios.peristeras@deri.org>
Hi Cristiano, > On 14 Dec 2014, at 10:07, Cristiano Longo <longo@dmi.unict.it> wrote: > > Dear list readers, > I just started studying the Data Catalogue Vocabulary (DCAT, http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/), but I have some doubts. If I understood, DCAT can be used to model catalogues of datasets, and not datasets by itself. Correct. > Thus the dcat:Dataset instances represent datasets or entries in catalogues? Datasets. To represent entries in catalogs, use dcat:CatalogRecord. > The CatalogRecord class can be used to provide additional meta-information about an entry in a catalogue, am I right? Yes. > Does a catalog record some relationships with distributions of the dataset the entry refers to? I don't understand the question. > Now, let us suppose that I have the same dataset reported in two different catalogues, which reports different (not necessarily contraddictory) information. Should I have a single dataset instance and two catalog records, or two dataset instances as well? “Instance” is not a terribly useful concept in RDF. This isn't OO. There *is* just a single dataset anyway, according to your supposition. The question is just whether you refer to that dataset by a single name (IRI) in both catalogues, or by two different names (where asserting owl:sameAs between them would be correct). There is nothing wrong with either approach, and which one to choose depends on various practical considerations. Best, Richard > > Any help is welcome, > thanks in advance, > Cristiano Longo
Received on Sunday, 14 December 2014 10:40:17 UTC