See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2012Nov/0081.html for
Leigh Dodds' proposal.
Concerns:
- It's not useful unless it specifies the exact API to be used for
reconciliation
- If we specify that the Refine API is to be used, then
void:reconciliationEndpoint is not a good term, as it “uses up” the generic
term and would make things awkward if a different reconciliation API becomes
popular in the future
- Google Refine is now Open Refine: https://github.com/OpenRefine ... Still a
bit in transition
- DCAT has a dcat:WebService class that could be subclassed for this. That
seems somewhat appropriate, as reconciliation isn't limited to RDF datasets,
and VoID is about RDF datasets while DCAT is about datasets in any format.
- From a spec development standpoint, making a W3C spec (even if just a Note)
dependent on a somewhat poorly documented vendor API seems not optimal. (This
doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful!)
- This seems to be the kind of property that, in an ideal world, the technology
provider (Refine dev team) would define themselves
Original issue reported on code.google.com by richard....@gmail.com on 16 Nov 2012 at 1:08
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
richard....@gmail.comon 16 Nov 2012 at 1:08