Closed kirahowe closed 1 year ago
@kiramclean I'm fine with all these predicates as they are. I'm happy for it to be merged pending the relaxation of the email spec @rosado suggested.
I think we should (perhaps as part of your README work) assemble one or more tables of RDF metadata terms we're using, and the entities which they attach to, and we should include the terms here in that list.
We should also specify if they're "managed" i.e. added by the system if absent or user supplied.
That makes sense. Rob more or less put together such a table here.. it's what I used to add these extra fields. I can include something like that in the improved readme or docs somewhere.
Ahh fantastic that table's great, and is more or less exactly what I was talking about!
This issue adds the extra metadata fields that Rob requested in this doc.
Note the predicates are added pretty fast-and-loose here. We would want to standardize/agree these if we were proceeding for real. For now this accomplishes the goal of allowing users to attach extra information to each resource. The new predicates that are "coined" as a result of this pr are (where
:dh
ishttps://publishmydata.com/def/datahost/
)::dh/nextUpdate
:dh/relatedLinks
:dh/contactName
:dh/contactEmail
:dh/contactPhone
:dh/publicationDate
:dh/reasonForChange
The decision to omit these extra metadata fields from collection endpoints was intentional, in the interest of keeping bulk responses smaller -- my thinking being that if a user wanted to full/verbose data on a given resource they can request it individually.