I know this is the DC-Architecture list, not the DCAT list, but that's
not going to stop me from responding :-)
It seems to me the DCAT specification [1] should (at least) use
terminology from RFC 2119 [2] to express the constraints of the
vocabulary, since it is referencing it already. I think tool designers
and builders that are capable of reading the specification will be
familiar with interpreting these keywords. Expressing constraints in
OWL or some other machine readable way seems less useful, but I guess
it can't hurt if they supplement (and do not disagree) with clear,
human readable text.
Having tools and services that encourage (and reward) people for
"conformance" seems more important than expressing constraints in a
machine actionable way.
//Ed
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just saw this post by Phil Archer on notions of "conformance", and
> thought it might be of interest in the context of the DCAP discussions
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/07/conformance_for_vocabularies.html
>
> particularly as the case under consideration (DCAT)
>
> (a) references several DCMI properties and
> (b) (from my perspective) has many of the characteristics of a DCAP
>
> Pete
> --
> Pete Johnston
|