DCAT-AP to datahub.io: duplicate configuration?

linkedpipes / etl

LinkedPipes ETL is an RDF based, lightweight ETL tool

https://etl.linkedpipes.com

Other

139 stars 30 forks source link

DCAT-AP to datahub.io: duplicate configuration? #413

Open jindrichmynarz opened 7 years ago

jindrichmynarz commented 7 years ago

The DCAT-AP to datahub.io component has two parameters that seem nearly duplicate:

Do we need both? If that is the case, what is the difference between them? What is their meaning? When they are switched off, does it mean that the dataset has no links? Other boolean parameters in LP-ETL component change their labels when they are toggled, but not this one. Changing the label might make the parameters clearer.

Tested using the develop version e075246dce28cfab21b0535b7d0691515b659339.

jakubklimek commented 7 years ago

This follows https://www.w3.org/wiki/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/DataSets/CKANmetainformation

jindrichmynarz commented 7 years ago

I looked into that linked document and I was unable to find an explanation for the above-mentioned parameters. Hence, I asked this question.

jakubklimek commented 7 years ago

lodcloud.nolinks Dataset has no external RDF links to other datasets.
lodcloud.unconnected Dataset has no external RDF links to or from other datasets.

jindrichmynarz commented 7 years ago

OK. The phrasing is unfortunate though. How about using these labels?

Dataset links external datasets (i.e. !lodcloud.nolinks)
External dataset link the dataset (i.e. lodcloud.unconnected = !this && !lodcloud.nolinks)

Even if we keep the original labels, I think the state of the switch should be clarified by changing its label as other LP-ETL components do.

jakubklimek commented 7 years ago

In this case, I would prefer sticking to the original document and not complicate the switch logic. It is confusing in the original document and it is not up to us to guess or interpret what the authors meant.

jindrichmynarz commented 7 years ago

Sure. Then I think we should just make the label change when the switch is on to indicate what is its state (and to be consistent with the other LP-ETL components).

jakubklimek commented 7 years ago

Other components are not consistent in this. At first we thought that it would be cool, but then it is not clear what the other state does until switched.

So what would the two labels be like? I would maybe omit "external" but otherwise leave them as they are.

jindrichmynarz commented 7 years ago

Just drop the "No" for the other state.