- From: Cristiano Longo <longo@dmi.unict.it>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:58:58 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- 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>
Dear Richard, thank you very much for your reply, but something remain unclear to me. On 14/12/2014 11:39, Richard Cyganiak wrote > ... >> 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. I borrowed the term "instance" from Description Logic. My issue is about merging two catalogs with two different entries, one for each catalog, about the same dataset, where different means which reports different information. Let us consider for example two catalogues, say C1 and C2, and a dataset D with title "the title" and a landing page http://landingpage.org. Of course we have just one data set, but two different (in the real world we are describing) entries e1 and e2, one for each catalog. Now, let us consider the case in which, may be for a typo, the title of D reported in C2 is wrong. Can I model this in DCAT? I'm not sure but examining the example in the documentation I suppose that CatalogRecord and hasCatalogRecord are not suitable for this purpose. Thanks again, CL
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 22:59:37 UTC