The rationale is that there is no need to describe the range of the property with an abridged definition of the relevant class, as we need just to point to it (as already done in the range of the property definition). Another issue is that this may lead to confusion - e.g., as highlighted in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1431 for the definition of dcat:service.
About the definition of dcterms:hasPart, "item" should be replaced by "resource", as the range of this property in DCAT, when used to link a catalog to one of the listed resources, is dcat:Resource (or a subclass thereof). Moreover, the use of "item" led to a misunderstanding reported in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1454 .
The current definitions are as follows:
dcterms:hasPartdcat:datasetdcat:servicedcat:catalogThe proposal is to revise them as follows:
dcterms:hasPartdcat:datasetdcat:servicedcat:catalogThe rationale is that there is no need to describe the range of the property with an abridged definition of the relevant class, as we need just to point to it (as already done in the range of the property definition). Another issue is that this may lead to confusion - e.g., as highlighted in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1431 for the definition of
dcat:service.About the definition of
dcterms:hasPart, "item" should be replaced by "resource", as the range of this property in DCAT, when used to link a catalog to one of the listed resources, isdcat:Resource(or a subclass thereof). Moreover, the use of "item" led to a misunderstanding reported in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1454 .The proposal has been implemented via PR https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1466