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

Various DCAT implementation fixes #57

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Various DCAT implementation fixes #57

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor

Uncontroversial:

  • The examples used dcat:download (which doesn't exist) instead of dcat:accessURL as documented by your schema. Fixed.
  • DCAT uses the dct prefix for the Dublic Core namespace, not dcterms. This project now uses only dct consistently instead of both haphazardly.
  • publisher and language are in the dct namespace not the dcat namespace.
  • Updated all links to DCAT in the metadata resources (anchors had changed).

Potentially controversial?

  • xsd:boolean (used for data quality) is not a property, it is a datatype. I switched it to a property in the temporary ex namespace, ex:dataQuality to make it valid RDFa.
  • dataDictionary and dataQuality don't exist in DCAT anymore. webService and feed never existed in DCAT (closest are the classes WebService and Feed). I moved them to a temporary ex namespace.
  • foaf:Person is a class, and therefore cannot be used as a property. Switched to dcat:contactPoint which the DCAT editors are currently adding, to make it valid RDFa.

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note, for consistency, size should be changed in the JSON to byteSize. However, to keep this pull request somewhat atomic, I've only made changes to RDFa-related content. I can make the changes to the JSON if requested. Similarly for person -> contactPoint in the JSON.

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please see #49 for more contentious issues. This pull request should not really cause much debate, as it is merely aligning the RDFa content with the current draft (and nearly final version of) DCAT. The current state of things is invalid RDFa.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2013
Closed
@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

@MarinaMartin Thanks for merging many of my pull requests! Any feedback on this pull's DCAT fixes? The current implementation of DCAT by this project has several errors.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2013
Closed
@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2013
Closed
@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

@haleyvandyck @benbalter My last open pull request has some important fixes. Let me know if I should split it up to make it easier to discuss/merge.

@benbalter
Copy link
Contributor

My last open pull request has some important fixes.

Link?

Let me know if I should split it up to make it easier to discuss/merge.

Granularity is always 👍. Makes discussion easier and makes conflicts less likely.

@MarinaNitze
Copy link
Contributor

In general, yes, break things up, but for already-submitted ones -- comments and updates are coming in the next few days, so no need to do extra work. Thanks.

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

@benbalter No need for link - this is the pull request :)

@MarinaNitze
Copy link
Contributor

It looks like when you rebased, your whole repo became this pull request, which is making this pull request really hard to parse for me. Could you possibly resubmit (at least) 2 pull requests: one with all of the catalog example files (which seem fine to merge to me), and the other with the mapping (which also seems OK)? If I missed anything in the other files that needs merging, please also submit individually. Sorry for the trouble, and we really appreciate your effort.

If you can't or don't have time, I will manually update the examples according to your suggestions above once the final 1.0 metadata schema is officially approved.

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Contributor Author

The rebase looks fine on the "Files Changed" tab, but I'll gladly split the pull request in two. However, could you please fix schema.md? @benbalter (according to commit history) did a bad merge, and there are still lines like <<<<<<< HEAD, even on the live site: http://project-open-data.github.io/schema/

That bad merge reinserted content related to granularity and size which had been removed in previous commits. I can't write new pull requests against schema.md while it's in its current state.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2013
Closed
@benbalter benbalter mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2013
Merged
This was referenced Oct 3, 2013
Merged
Merged
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
schema v1.1
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@jpmckinney @benbalter @MarinaNitze