Documenting changes to DCAT classes / properties

[andrea-perego]

It might be useful to document changes to DCAT classes / properties also in its RDF representation.

Possible options include:

• vann:changes
• skos:changeNote

[andrea-perego]

In addition to my previous comment:

In #169, there has been a discussion on how to formally denote a revision to the first version of DCAT, and it seems that the supported solution is to use owl:deprecated.

This does not implicitly exclude using annotation properties (as vann:changes / skos:changeNote), which are meant to explain the motivation behind the revision.

However, owl:deprecated can be used only for the whole definition of a class or property in the DCAT namespace, but not for specific statements (as those concerning domain/range restrictions, subclasses, subproperties), unless we use reification.

I'm raising this issue just to ask the WG whether we should go this way, or just use annotation properties for documenting revisions to specific statements.

[davebrowning]

We haven't done this (yet), though I guess it could be added from the change note section in the recommendation. Proposing we treat as future (editorial?) work... though perhaps prioritise for 2019?

[andrea-perego]

The DCAT vocabulary has eventually addressed this issue by adding skos:changenote - see #923 , #984 & al.

Closing.