You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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 #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 #1454 .
The current definitions are as follows:
dcterms:hasPart
dcat:dataset
dcat:service
dcat:catalog
The proposal is to revise them as follows:
dcterms:hasPart
dcat:dataset
dcat:service
dcat:catalog
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 #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 #1454 .The proposal has been implemented via PR #1466
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: