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

Replace dcterms:hasPart with a specific property #1469

Closed
andrea-perego opened this issue Feb 27, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1470
Closed

Replace dcterms:hasPart with a specific property #1469

andrea-perego opened this issue Feb 27, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1470

Comments

@andrea-perego
Copy link
Contributor

andrea-perego commented Feb 27, 2022

dcterms:hasPart is re-used in DCAT as the generic relationship between a dcat:Catalog and the listed dcat:Resource's, i.e., to specify that a given element (dcat:Resource) is in a given set (dcat:Catalog).

The problem is that dcterms:hasPart, as per its DCTERMS definition, may indicate either an element in a set or a subset. This may raise issues in the use of this property, e.g., to specify relationships between a catalogue and its subsets (sub-catalogues), as reported in #1454

The proposal is as follows:

  1. Revise §6.3.3 by replacing dcterms:hasPart with a specific property dcat:resource. It will be sub-property of dcterms:hasPart, with domain dcat:Catalog and range dcat:Resource.
  2. Revise properties dcat:dataset, dcat:service, and dcat:catalog to make them sub-properties of dcat:resource.
  3. Add dcterms:hasPart under dcat:Resource.

The proposal is implemented via PR #1470

@riccardoAlbertoni
Copy link
Contributor

I am in favour of this proposal, doing so we leave dcterms:hasPart for Loosely structured catalog, and we have specific subproperties for more specific use cases.

DCAT revision automation moved this from To do to Done Mar 8, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
DCAT revision
  
Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants