Open mrpatrickwest opened 9 years ago
First a tangent, then some questions on the modeling of dco:hasDistribution
.
The GCIS ontology is currently discussing a related issue as they wanted to know what property to use to relate a resource describing the PDF of a report with a resource describing the report.
We discussed FRBR for a bit and are thinking of using that to relate a resource that describes a manifestation of the publication (PDF of the report) with a resource that represents an expression of the publication (the report).
http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html
1) Why define our own property instead of using dcat:distribution
? Was that so we could have a broader domain?
2) The definition of dcat:Distribution
is specific to a dataset. Are we in agreement that it makes sense to apply dcat:Distribution
to manifestations of non-dataset publications?
definition: Represents a specific available form of a dataset. Each dataset might be available in different forms, these forms might represent different formats of the dataset or different endpoints. Examples of distributions include a downloadable CSV file, an API or an RSS feed
I am inclined to say that I do not think it makes sense to apply dcat:Distribution
to non-dataset publications.
Currently only datasets use this property, but it's possible to have a publication that has a distribution. If you look at any publication the very first property in the overview is dco:hasDistribution (which needs to be fixed).
I'm thinking the answer is yes, a publication, not just a dataset, can have a distribution. If that's the case then we need to fix the code so that it's not assuming that the domain is a dataset.
Also raises the question if a dco:ProjectUpdate should also be an information resource. Not a publication, but an information resource.