search

SEMICeu / iso-19139-to-dcat-ap

Reference XSLT-based implementation of GeoDCAT-AP
European Union Public License 1.2
15 stars 9 forks source link

xml syntax vcard:hasTelephone #8

Closed pvgenuchten closed 3 years ago

pvgenuchten commented 3 years ago

Swedish validator fails at

https://github.com/SEMICeu/iso-19139-to-dcat-ap/blob/e7aa2d802f6e337ffce64c9167c66b835916f421/iso-19139-to-dcat-ap.xsl#L1507

expects hasTelephone as https://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/#Examples

        <vcard:hasTelephone rdf:parseType="Resource">
          <vcard:hasValue rdf:resource="tel:+61755555555"/>
          <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#Home"/>
          <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#Voice"/>
        </vcard:hasTelephone>
andrea-perego commented 3 years ago

Thanks for reporting this issue, @pvgenuchten .

I guess this is the pattern/template defined in the Swedish profile of DCAT-AP (I don't know if other DCAT-AP profiles recommend the same one).

If this is the case, this issue should be preferably addressed by a custom version of the GeoDCAT-AP XSLT, implementing the requirements of the Swedish profile.

/cc @matthiaspalmer

pvgenuchten commented 3 years ago

Ok, clear answer

matthiaspalmer commented 3 years ago

The DCAT-AP specifications (both earlier and latest) are rather vague regarding how to express the vcard:Kind of the dcat:contactPoint. In the Swedish profile we thought it better to provide guidance for implementors on which properties to use, e.g. which properties to use and weather to use the n-ary or direct properties.

Clearly, when you implement a mapping you have to decide, which is apparent in the transform mentioned XSLT file. And when you build something like a portal you typically need to either harmonize or understand a lot of different cases. And apparently we made different decisions in the Swedish DCAT-AP compared to the Inspire to dcat XSLT.

I just checked the German and Norwegian DCAT-AP profiles, they do not seem to provide any guidance on this unfortunately. I guess a deeper look is required to see if there is a majority rule to gravitate towards in the future.