search

w3c / dxwg

Data Catalog Vocabulary (DCAT)
https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/
Other
144 stars 55 forks source link

Dcat editorial improvements #1433

Closed riccardoAlbertoni closed 2 years ago

riccardoAlbertoni commented 2 years ago

A draft updating initial sections to make them more consistent with DCAT 3.

Please check if anything is missing, and feel free to comment and change.

preview: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-editorialimprovements/dcat/index.html diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/&doc2=https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-editorialimprovements/dcat/index.html

riccardoAlbertoni commented 2 years ago

@davebrowning, are you referring to the notes saying when the terms were added?
I was thinking to leave them. Because I guess these notes might help in different situations, e.g., when trying to understand with what version a dataset is compliant.

I've noticed that some of these notes also explain why the term was added and not only when. I would be keen to keep also those as, in my opinion, they help to understand the context of the choice we made and the context is often useful to better use of the standard.

As for things we might consider reviewing, the section 6.1 RDF representation is not very aligned with dcat 3. -Do we want to add a note saying "a new RDF will be made available for DCAT 3 as soon as the vocabulary is finalized"?

davebrowning commented 2 years ago

Hi @riccardoAlbertoni - yes, the notes that say that they were added in DCAT2 - everything else was in the initial version, of course. As you say, sometimes it includes something of the rationale behind the addition, and that's definitely worth preserving in some way. I think we maybe want to:

  1. Provide a consistent way to highlight 'design' notes (the "why" it was done that way). That could be a modified form of the NOTE format.

  2. Something that tracks when a term was introduced (and I guess, any other status change such as deprecation.....if we ever did that). As it is, this is NOTEd in the section 6 definitions and acknowledged in the Appendix D Change History. It probably has to be in both but I was wondering if a table in its own chapter as well might actually be more useful. I think it deserves a given a bit more prominence. We could use the existing style to highlight any new terms introduced in this recommendation (ie DCAT 3). I haven't had a chance to look for any prior art in any other recommendation that might have had to do this - will try to find time to do that in the next few days & see if I can sketch out an approach and see what we all think.

As for the section 6.1 RDF - yeah, I saw that too. I agree that we should tag it with a note as you suggest for now.

riccardoAlbertoni commented 2 years ago

added the note on RDF serializations, let's consider if we want to include also the note added via PR #1439

riccardoAlbertoni commented 2 years ago

As discussed yesterday in the call, points 1 and point 2 in Dave's message will be developed and implemented in a new PR. We merge the improvements we have so far, to include them in the upcoming WD.