Sub-editing/Issue 301

[davebrowning]

This set of changes aims to address the textual rules raised in issue #301. Along the way, there has been some clarifing textual changes ( in particular where the addition of services to catalogs hadn't been acknowledged) and a few broken internal links. There's a fair few small changes (There was also an indentation problem which has increased the line count....)

Some of these updates need to be reflected in the rdf (turtle) file but since some of the links to that don't work (see #320 ) yet and we need to address how that works for 2PWD, I'd like to ensure the changes are okay then I can cut and paste into the rdf and ensure the links work as needed

Questions/comments:

1. The document still repeats some properties in (e.g. title is in dcat:Catalog etc as well as dcat:Resource. In general the definitions are now the same. Are we happy to define the properties once in the super class and make that change now?

2. In general internal links to class definitions don't work in the editors draft - it looks to me that the respec process fixes that, but I'm following that up to make sure it's done correctly.

[dr-shorthair]

@davebrowning I notice that many property descriptions in the rec include text in the 'Range:' section - e.g. https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#Property:catalog_language - which has not made it into the RDF representation (i.e. the ttl file). This should probably be included as skos:scopeNote elements. In many cases these are on dct properties, which may not be currently described in the RDF representation. But you can add local scope notes which would thus supplement the dct descriptions pulled in from DCMI.

I have proposed something similar to add the scope notes for prov:wasGeneratedBy into the RDF - see lines 790-791 in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/blob/dcat-issue71-simon/dcat/rdf/dcat.ttl

[dr-shorthair]

On this issue:

The document still repeats some properties in (e.g. title is in dcat:Catalog etc as well as dcat:Resource. In general the definitions are now the same. Are we happy to define the properties once in the super class and make that change now?

Since the association of many (most?) properties with classes is not axiomatized, but rather is just through normative text in the rec document, I wonder if we should copy down the list of inherited properties, instead of just saying 'In addition to the properties inherited from the super-class ...' - the links could still point back to the original documentation on the super-class, but it might be clearer to implementers what is expected.

[davebrowning]

Good point on the range: sections on property descriptions - that's still outstanding (that is, I've fixed the English text in the rdf, but not addressed the ranges.)

On repetition: yes, that might work. I'm against having inherited property definitions duplicated in their entirety, but listing them in the section as part of/immediately below the Class definition would be helpful. [Since I've been flipping between the 2014 spec and our work, the usefulness of having all the recommended properties for a class listed together stands out a bit....]

[dr-shorthair]

This updated version of the UML shows the inherited properties more clearly:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-issue347-simon/dcat/UML/DCAT-summary-all-attributes.png
in #348

[davebrowning]

To be a bit more explicit - yes, that's a good step forward