 |
 |
All, if you work with access to datasets, you should take a look at the draft of the W3C DCAT vocabulary that is now available for comment. This arises primarily out of the European Union's open government data efforts, but as it is being closely monitored by Google as a way to provide search and access to datasets online it may well become key to the findability of all types of datasets on the net. If your institution is a W3C member this is especially important for you. kc Dear Colleague This mail is to update you on the work of the W3C Data Exchange Working Group [1] and to ask for your help in reviewing progress on the revision of the RDF vocabulary for data catalogues, DCAT, that was published on 8 May 2018. The First Public Working Draft of the revision is available at https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/ The revision of DCAT is part of a group of 3 deliverables described in the Charter [2], but it is able to stand up by itself as an update to the recommended way in which data catalogues should be published on the web. The main ways in which this first draft revision differs from the current recommendation include: * more relaxed axiomatisation that gives greater flexibility to the domain and range Classes of several predicates *an expectation for a more modular approach to ontology development that defines a core and provides scope for other optional components through import In addition, among other things, we are working on: *extending the scope of DCAT to include data services and data distribution services as well as datasets as members of a catalog *ways of dealing with related datasets (including sub-datasets) *representing dataset quality In reviewing the draft it might be helpful for you to keep in mind the “Use Cases and Requirements” document that we are working to [3]. We would find it helpful to get feedback on the following lines: 1. Do you agree with the direction of travel of this revision of DCAT? 2. Are there any areas where we could improve what we have done? [please illustrate] 3. Are there any areas where you think the proposal is wrong or could lead us into developing proposals that are erroneous? [please give examples and reasons] 4. Are there other use cases for data catalogues and datasets descriptions that we have not considered [please illustrate] Please also feel free to make any other comments and suggestions regarding the draft. Please, send comments through GitHub issues (https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues) or through email at [log in to unmask] [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/ -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600