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

Move schema.org alignment to annexe #822

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Mar 27, 2019
Merged

Move schema.org alignment to annexe #822

merged 13 commits into from
Mar 27, 2019

Conversation

dr-shorthair
Copy link
Contributor

This follows the resolution in the 2019-03-10 meeting.
The annexe needs a little more work, to verify that all properties added or modified since the original version are accounted for.
Also - it refers to an RDF representation which axiomatizes the mapping using various SKOS, RDFS and OWL predicates, which might overreach.

Copy link
Contributor

@riccardoAlbertoni riccardoAlbertoni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I dislike that the schema prefix is 's' in the figure 3 and 'sdo' in the rest of the appendix and in the related ttl code. Is there a specific reason I might have missed for that? If not, I would suggest making it uniform. If changing the prefix into the figure is more complex than in the appendix and code, we might uniform the prefix for schema.org to 's'. What do you think?

Also, If I have correctly understood the discussion in the teleconference we had two weeks ago, I think we decide to get rid of all the mappings except for schema and prov. Do I remember wrongly? if not, I would suggest deleting/commenting the whole appendix B.

@riccardoAlbertoni riccardoAlbertoni added this to the DCAT CR milestone Mar 21, 2019
@davebrowning
Copy link
Contributor

Note: while broadly editorial, this PR does add a new example (dataset-004-sdo.ttl file in example directory)

@davebrowning davebrowning deleted the dcat-sdo-annexe branch March 29, 2019 08:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants