Skip to content
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

Agent-role distributor in Distribution context #81

Open
joachimnielandt opened this issue Feb 27, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Agent-role distributor in Distribution context #81

joachimnielandt opened this issue Feb 27, 2024 · 7 comments
Labels
release:3.0.0 Actively being worked on for GeoDCAT-AP 3.0.0 status:wont-fix To be closed after this iteration type:improvement Improvement of current handling of a problem webinar:2024-05-14 To be discussed in the 2024-05-14 webinar

Comments

@joachimnielandt
Copy link

In https://semiceu.github.io/GeoDCAT-AP/releases/#agent-roles a number of agent roles are presented. A question arises when considering that there could be a more strict definition or expectation of a role within a specific context.

For instance, a distributor is a role about distributing a resource. That is clear for a Distribution as this is a precise specific instance of a Dataset. For a Dataset the semantics become a bit more fuzzy: is the distributor agent responsible for the distribution of all Distributions associated with a dataset?

Assessing the impact of the agent-roles and associating them with a preferred DCAT class could be discussed.

@jakubklimek
Copy link
Contributor

@joachimnielandt just to clarify, do you suggest that GeoDCAT-AP would provide further guidance on which of these roles based on the INSPIRE responsible party role code list are suitable for which of the DCAT classes - Dataset, Distribution, Data Service, Catalog instead of the current generic approach?

Do you have any specific suggestions?

@joachimnielandt
Copy link
Author

joachimnielandt commented Mar 20, 2024

Indeed, having some guideline on which role is applicable could be helpful. Where this information should be supplied, I don't know. For GeoDCAT-AP Vlaanderen (Flemish), the following was defined as the mapping, for example:

ISO ScopeCode ISO(en) ISO(nl) Metadata DCAT GeoDCAT-AP URI (class) card.
service Custodian Beheerder Uitgever Publisher dct:publisher (dataservice) 1..1
service PointOfContact Contactpunt Contactinformatie ContactPoint dcat:contactPoint (dataservice) 1..1
dataset Owner Eigenaar Owner dct:rightsHolder (dataset) 0..1
dataset Owner Eigenaar Publisher (1) dct:publisher (dataset) 1..1
dataset Distributor Verdeler Distributor geodcat:distributor (distribution) 0..1
dataset PointOfContact Contactpunt Contactinformatie ContactPoint dcat:contactPoint (dataset) 1..1
dataset Publisher Beheerder Uitgever Publisher dct:publisher (dataset) 1..1

(1) if gmd:publisher is missing we map the gmd:owner to dct:publisher, as this is semantically closest

@jakubklimek
Copy link
Contributor

@joachimnielandt Your mapping basically corresponds to the mapping specified in GeoDCAT-AP B.6.16 Responsible party and metadata point of contact - *Dataset responsible party and *Metadata point of contact with the exception for Custodian, which GeoDCAT-AP maps to geodcat:custodian and you map it, for a service, to dct:publisher.

However, it is still a bit unclear to me, what exactly is your proposed improvement, as you mentioned that you would suggest Distributor to be used with Distributions, however, even in your mapping, it is used with a Dataset.

Could it maybe be boiled down to your original question

Is distributor agent (specified on dataset) responsible for the distribution of all Distributions associated with a dataset?

?

Are there any rules like these in the INSPIRE guidelines?

@jakubklimek jakubklimek added the feedback-requested Community feedback requested label Apr 16, 2024
@joachimnielandt
Copy link
Author

@jakubklimek the table above might not have been clear enough - we have modified the header so that the first column indicates the ISO scopecode and the URI column contains the target dcat class.

The main takeaway would be the following line:

ISO ScopeCode ISO(en) ISO(nl) Metadata DCAT GeoDCAT-AP URI (class) card.
dataset Distributor Verdeler Distributor geodcat:distributor (distribution) 0..1

@jakubklimek
Copy link
Contributor

@joachimnielandt OK, so if I understand this correctly, you are saying that in your mapping rules, you have a mapping saying that a Distributor of a dataset in the ISO metadata is mapped to geodcat:distributor property on a dcat:Distribution, not a dcat:Dataset, whereas in GeoDCAT-AP 2.0.0 this is mapped to geodcat:distributor property on a dcat:Dataset.

And you propose to discuss, whether the geodcat:distributor should be moved from dcat:Dataset to dcat:Distribution and the mapping adjusted?

@joachimnielandt
Copy link
Author

Indeed, discussing moving the attribute from dcat:Dataset to dcat:Distribution would be the proposal. Or at least a clarification of what if means to have a distributor on a Dataset level.

@jakubklimek jakubklimek added type:improvement Improvement of current handling of a problem release:3.0.0 Actively being worked on for GeoDCAT-AP 3.0.0 webinar:2024-05-14 To be discussed in the 2024-05-14 webinar next-webinar To be discussed in the next webinar labels Apr 19, 2024
@jakubklimek jakubklimek removed the feedback-requested Community feedback requested label May 6, 2024
@jakubklimek jakubklimek added the status:wont-fix To be closed after this iteration label May 14, 2024
@jakubklimek
Copy link
Contributor

Proposition was rejected during the webinar.

@jakubklimek jakubklimek removed the next-webinar To be discussed in the next webinar label May 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release:3.0.0 Actively being worked on for GeoDCAT-AP 3.0.0 status:wont-fix To be closed after this iteration type:improvement Improvement of current handling of a problem webinar:2024-05-14 To be discussed in the 2024-05-14 webinar
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants