Align mandatory and reccomended classes from DCAT-AP to DCAT-AP CH

[sabinem]

Property: DCAT-AP properties that are not specified in DCAT-AP CH Class: DCAT-AP classes that are not specified in DCAT-AP CH Conformance Problem: Currently all mandatory and recommended classes and properties from DCAT-AP are defined in DCAT-AP-CH. Portal managers (“data receivers”) and data publishers (“data providers”) need guidance on what it means for them if a class or property is specified in DCAT-AP but not in DCAT-AP CH: can they use it, will the data portal support it? Proposal:

• Include all mandatory and recommended classes and properties of DCAT-AP in DCAT-AP CH and state that in the conformance note: https://www.dcat-ap.ch/releases/2.0/dcat-ap-ch.html#provider-requirements. This way can data providers (e.g. federal offices, cantons, cities,…) be certain that if they use DCAT-AP CH as only reference they will still have valid data catalogues
• Explain with a note that more classes and properties of DCAT-AP (optional classes) can be added to data catalogues and that data receivers (i.e. opendata.swiss) will have to pass them through (for instance to data.europa.eu) as well formed DCAT-AP catalogues, even if some properties or classe are directly defined in DCAT-AP CH (see https://github.com/opendata-swiss/dcat_ap_ch/issues/119)

Possible consequences on opendata.swiss

• Check integration of new classes/properties
• Data receiver which use DCAT-AP-CH as a reference should still be able to pass through well formed DCAT-AP catalogues, see https://github.com/opendata-swiss/dcat_ap_ch/issues/119

[AFoletti]

This is in my opinion of paramount importance. It is of little interest to tell people that DCAT-AP CH wants to be interoperable but it lacks mandatory or recommended classes and properties from DCAT-AP. Neither should I, as a data publisher on opendata.swiss, have to keep 2 different documents at hand to be sure to be compliant. As stated in the original post, the CH documentation should be enough

[Juan-Juan-1]

Dear @AFoletti, we updated the description based on your remarks. I hope it's clearer that way?

[AFoletti]

Dear @AFoletti, we updated the description based on your remarks. I hope it's clearer that way?

It is, thanks!