- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:38:28 -0000
- To: "John Erickson" <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>, public-gld-wg@w3.org
> +1 to cygri's subtle re-wording; thanks! +1 from me too, with sincere apols, again, for trying to get away witb skim reading. Phil > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> > wrote: >> Phil, >> >> On 8 Mar 2013, at 12:15, Phil Archer wrote: >>> The proposal says that DCAT will include >>> >>> * an informative reference to VoID, >>> * a brief explanation of the difference in scope between both >>> vocabularies, >>> * a pointer to a place that talks about the relationship in more >>> detail, which would ideally be an updated VoID spec. >>> >>> Which seems right. However, do you or Fadi have some suggested text? >> >> Yes. It was in the email and actually very hard to miss! Let me repeat >> it: >> >> >> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-54 by adding the following text to the DCAT >> introduction: >> >> [[ >> Data can come in many formats, ranging from spreadsheets over XML and >> RDF to various speciality formats. DCAT does not make any assumptions >> about the format of the datasets described in a catalog. Other, >> complementary vocabularies may be used together with DCAT to provide >> more detailed format-specific information. For example, properties from >> the VoID vocabulary [[VoID]] can be used to express various statistics >> about a DCAT-described dataset if that dataset is in RDF format. >> ]] >> >> >> In short, your proposed text says: "VoID is for linked data, DCAT is for >> catalogs". My proposed text says: "VoID is for data in RDF format, DCAT >> is neutral with regards to format." Is this acceptable to you? It would >> avoid John's objection. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >> >> >>> Please improve on this, for example: >>> >>> The VoID vocabulary is widely used to describe linked data sets that >>> may or may not be published within a catalog. DCAT is designed to >>> describe any sort of dataset but always within the context of a >>> catalog. This difference in use case is what leads to the differences >>> between the two vocabularies. Publishers are encouraged to publish >>> metadata about their linked data sets using VoID in addition to records >>> that appear in catalogs that use DCAT. >>> >>> That's quite a strong endorsement of VoID of course but as an >>> informative bit of text we should be OK. >>> >>> Phil. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08/03/2013 11:26, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>>> There are two remaining issues on DCAT that we couldn't address in the >>>> telco. A Proposals for one of them is below. If you have any objection >>>> to the proposed course of action, please say so via email. >>>> >>>> >>>> ISSUE-54: Relationship of DCAT and VoID >>>> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/54 >>>> >>>> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-54 by adding the following text to the DCAT >>>> introduction: >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> Data can come in many formats, ranging from spreadsheets over XML and >>>> RDF to various speciality formats. DCAT does not make any assumptions >>>> about the format of the datasets described in a catalog. Other, >>>> complementary vocabularies may be used together with DCAT to provide >>>> more detailed format-specific information. For example, properties >>>> from the VoID vocabulary [[VoID]] can be used to express various >>>> statistics about a DCAT-described dataset if that dataset is in RDF >>>> format. >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Phil Archer >>> W3C eGovernment >>> >>> http://philarcher.org >>> +44 (0)7887 767755 >>> @philarcher1 >>> >> >> > > > > -- > John S. Erickson, Ph.D. > Director, Web Science Operations > Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) > <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com> > Twitter & Skype: olyerickson > -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse typos.
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 20:38:55 UTC