DCAT LC comments

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 13:33, 30 May 2013 by Fmaali (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Comments and draft responses for the DCAT Last Call ending 2013-04-08.

Disposition of comments
Comment Summary Status GLD response Acknowledgement
1. Aaron Couch
  • List all properties in ToC
  • 2 editorial comments
Editor to complete reply
2. Jeni Tennison

Use dct:rights instead of dct:license

Tracked as ISSUE-60. Needs working group discussion


3. Jeni Tennison

Consider adding dct:provenance or prov:has_provenance

Prefer no change. reply acknowledged as resolved
4. Paul Groth
  • Consider adding dct:provenance or prov:has_provenance
  • Consider referencing PROV
Prefer no change. reply
5. Stuart Harrison

Can DCAT describe APIs?

Tracked in ISSUE-62.
6. Vasily Bunakov

Add a dcat:interface property that points to a statement or manifest about technical means of accessing the dataset

Tracked in ISSUE-62.
7. Marios Meimaris

Add a property that links a distribution to an external concept that describes its access rules and methods

Tracked in ISSUE-62.
8. Alasdair Gray
  • Move textual definitions into the tables for each property
  • 1 editorial comment
Editors to complete replied
9. Phil Archer

Don't say that 2005-01-01 should be used for "unknown date in 2005"

Tracked as ISSUE-63. reply
10. Stasinos Konstantopolous

Don't say that 2005-01-01 should be used for "unknown date in 2005"

Tracked as ISSUE-63. reply
11. Alasdair Gray
  • Rename dcat:dataset and dcat:distribution to dcat:hasDataset and dcat:hasDistribution
  • (Note resulting long discussion thread)
Tracked as ISSUE-64.

no consensus - closed

12. Bill Roberts
  • Add something for Granularity
  • Clarify how to use accrualPeriodicity
We don't do granularity because it's hard. For accrualPeriodicity, can use SDMX COGs. Editor to add COG example to spec.
13. Andrea Perego

Add properties for dataset versioning, along the lines of ADMS

Needs working group discussion reply
14. Christopher Gutteridge

Add Contact and Corrections properties

Needs working group discussion reply
15. Andrea Perego

What exactly is the scope of DCAT? Datasets or any kind of resource? Consider extending the scope.

Tracked in ISSUE-62.
16. Ed Simons


  • How to express dataset relationships such as "derived from"
  • Time-related properties don't allow stating what agent caused the event
  • Publisher is not the only dataset-agent relationship; creator and maintainer are important
  • Catalog language is superfluous and ambiguous
  • No license attached to each individual dataset metadata record
  • Link from CatalogRecord to Catalog not necessary; link to Dataset sufficient
  • Distribution types shouldn't be implicit


  • Add classes that represent connections between DS-DS, DS-Agent, Cat-Agent
  • Add Person and Organisation class
  • Add classes for each type of distribution
Editor can respond to most points; if not, will raise issues for WG discussion
17. Makx Dekkers

The mental model of catalogs + datasets, and whether they can be used independently, is not really clear

Resolved - editors to paste links to relevant emails into this table replies: 1 2 3 4
18. Makx Dekkers

Is it implied that a dcat:Dataset must have at least one distribution on the Web

Resolved - editors to paste links to relevant emails into this table replies: 1 2 3 4 [1]
19. Makx Dekkers

What is the "single source" that the dcat:Dataset definition talks about?

Editors to make changes to the draft (e.g. "Single source" will be changed to "single agent".) implemented
20. Makx Dekkers

Spec presents Concept and ConceptScheme in a single box despite being separate classes

Editors to complete implemented
21. Makx Dekkers

Not clear what distinguishes a dataset from rdfs:Resource

Resolved in F2F resolved
22. Makx Dekkers

Range of dct:language should be dct:LinguisticSystem

Editor to make editorial change implemented
23. Makx Dekkers

DCAT should not place restrictions on use of SKOS

Needs working group discussion