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

Collecting implementation evidence for DCAT-2 #767

Open
andrea-perego opened this issue Feb 18, 2019 · 7 comments

Comments

4 participants
@andrea-perego
Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 18, 2019

I started preparing a spreadsheet to collect implementation evidence, based on the table in the DCAT 2014 implementation report:

https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations#Summary_of_terms_usage

You can find it here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eEVUuPFAGO2GjS5ocxylY8T1AlpqlwnOTc3er_Mhcv4/edit?usp=sharing

In the spreadsheet I added all the classes now in DCAT-2, along all the properties explicitly or implicitly associated with them. I also marked with a gray background those classes/properties which are a legacy from DCAT 2014 - and for which I guess we don't need to provide implementation evidence. Finally, I used other formatting for specifying the new classes / properties, "recommended" properties, those inherited from dcat:Resource, those inherited from parent classes (see the "legenda" tab in the spreadsheet for details).

@dr-shorthair , @agbeltran , @davebrowning , @pwin , do you think this approach could make sense?

@riccardoAlbertoni

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Feb 19, 2019

see also #680

@dr-shorthair dr-shorthair changed the title Collection implementation evidence for DCAT-2 Collecting implementation evidence for DCAT-2 Feb 19, 2019

@agbeltran

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 5, 2019

This report on DCAT-AP usage (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/document/report-dcat-ap-use) that @andrea-perego referenced in #728 seems relevant for our implementation report.

@andrea-perego

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Mar 5, 2019

@agbeltran said:

This report on DCAT-AP usage (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/document/report-dcat-ap-use) that @andrea-perego referenced in #728 seems relevant for our implementation report.

Please be aware that I used it in the spreadsheet to report implementation evidence from the European Data Portal.

@riccardoAlbertoni

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Mar 14, 2019

I suspect this issue is not for the milestone DCAT CR.
The implementation evidence is collected once that we have the Candidate Recommendation.

That is what I have understood following the discussion during last plenary, and in particular,
considering what Philippe Le Hégaret said at 21:22:22 in the plenary minutes:

Once you have CR, you have to gather implementation experience. You have three steps, CR, proposal recommendation (at which point we ask members at large to review), and then recommendation.

and also reading the Candidate rec section in the W3C consortium Process Document.

I might be mistaken, but what is necessary at this stage is to document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated by indicating the way we want to follow in the section Status of this document.

For example, in the first candidate REC of the Data on the Web Best Practices, the DWBP group wrote:

The Working Group invites publishers to test whether their datasets pass or fail each of the Best Practices in this document using the DWBP Evidences Form. The information gathered through this means will be augmented by further analysis of data available on the Web and, as noted in the charter, national or sector-specific guidelines that reference the Best Practices. The Working Group expects to adduce the combined set of evidence when requesting that the Director advance this document to Proposed Recommendation.

DWBP developed a dedicate set of forms, but I guess that we might as well prepare a github wiki page where to provide instruction for implementers considering as possible ways one or more among the following possibilities

The preliminary collection of implementations started by @andrea-perego and @dr-shorthair are in any case useful preparing the CR, they might be precious to identify DCAT features/ terms which might be at risk. In fact, according to the Candidate rec section, the Working Group to publish a Candidate Recommendation

MAY identify features in the document as "at risk". These features may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.

@agbeltran

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 14, 2019

@riccardoAlbertoni

I suspect this issue is not for the milestone DCAT CR.
The implementation evidence is collected once that we have the Candidate Recommendation.

That is what I have understood following the discussion during last plenary, and in particular,
considering what Philippe Le Hégaret said at 21:22:22 in the plenary minutes:

Once you have CR, you have to gather implementation experience. You have three steps, CR, proposal recommendation (at which point we ask members at large to review), and then recommendation.

Yes, that was my understanding too. This issue had ended up in the CR milestone simply because I renamed the milestone we were using. I have now created a different milestone and moved this issue there. Thanks.

@pwin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 14, 2019

https://github.com/pwin/DataPortalAnalysis has some code and results of the classes of subject and object together with numbers of triples for a wide range of predicates. This can be extended

@pwin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 19, 2019

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10-UIgM1xLQXNsaSgU6xRsPlsYo3jABreVNwjzciGPKM/edit?usp=sharing is the spreadsheet of @andrea-perego with dcat:DataDistributionService info removed and preds merged with dcat:DataService

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.