-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Richer typing of relations in bag-of-files case #730
Conversation
@makxdekkers - pinging you again about this, it would be great to have your review about this |
Mostly OK, but there are a number of properties in the So I think there should be a |
# Conflicts: # dcat/index.html
OK - I've added two distributions of the Ontology - in Turtle and RDF/XML. |
Thanks @dr-shorthair. Looking more closely at the two sections with links to the images, I see that you describe them with
|
Else relax the domain of |
@dr-shorthair Is this really necessary? You seem to be suggesting we change the domains of two DCAT properties in order to support an example. |
OK, I was just copying the pattern of My goal here was to show how a simple pattern for how some additional information about the related resources could be included in the graph, but now I'm not sure it is possible. |
You ask "So where would the descriptions of the related resources that are neither |
What about using schema.org DigitalDocument type, which allows a URL to explicitly state where to get the resource representation; otherwise it appears one must assume that the URI for dct:relation object is resolvable (which ideally would be true, but not necessarily).
|
@smrgeoinfo That is another way of doing it. However, you're still creating a description for an 'external' resource that you don't own. Doing so creates a risk as you cannot control what the owner does with its resource. For example, stratigraphy.org could tomorrow reissue the image and from that time the |
…s-check properties of schema:EntryPoint against dcat:DataService
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK for me. Thanks!
FWIW I also made a schema.org variant of the same example It is almost complete - the only props I couldn't match are |
There is some discussion about including something like |
We do have the prefixes Also, section D.1 (https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-issue317-simon/dcat/index.html#bag-of-files for this PR), presents several representations by adding more details to the same example, which is nice. While this is clear by looking at the IDs, etc, it might be useful to spell it out in the presentation. |
I've inserted some |
Minor changes + a new example, discussed in #317