Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 18, 2024. It is now read-only.

Feedback on common core schema #49

Closed
jpmckinney opened this issue May 16, 2013 · 4 comments
Closed

Feedback on common core schema #49

jpmckinney opened this issue May 16, 2013 · 4 comments

Comments

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor

In general, great work! A few questions/comments:

Ref.: the latest version of DCAT

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

Comments re: ranges:

  • Please recommend ISO 8601 for all date fields. ISO 8601 can do reduced dates (e.g. YYYY, YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD) in addition to all your usual long-form dates (and more) and is well supported by a very wide range of systems (including your favorite programming languages).
    • Note: 2013-05-09 06:00:00 in the samples is not ISO 8601, but 2013-05-09T06:00:00 is (simple change - just add a "T" instead of a space - these values will be computer-generated anyway).
  • Please recommend MIME types for the values of format. Otherwise, you'll end up with all kinds of variations for the same format: "JSON", "json", "JavaScript Object Notation", etc. MIME is super well-supported. Note that DCAT recommends dcat:mediaType for MIME types.
  • Recommend that license be a link to the license.

Other comments:

  • Dublin Core has a richer representation for spatial which you may want to consider.
  • dcterms:rights is more popularly implemented than dcterms:license, and DCAT is considering switching to it after feedback from the community. rights is also semantically broader than license. license isn't incorrect in your use case - but it's the less common option.

JSON errors:

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

FYI, DCAT is transitioning to Candidate Recommendation (CR) at W3C - most of the changes to DCAT mentioned above happened over the last year before this repository was published. contactPoint is being added in response to Last Call feedback (the stage before CR in the standardization process). Just assuring you that DCAT will not continue to change in significant ways and that it is very nearly final at this point.

Also, I don't mind writing pull requests for these; I figure it's best to discuss first.

@benbalter
Copy link
Contributor

👍 for dropping granularity, implemented in #115

@MarinaNitze
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for all of your hard work on this!

I think that closes out any outstanding issues here. Thanks again!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants