Replies: 4 comments
-
|
Great @nichtich! BTW have you seen this work bootstrapped on the implementation level: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks! How come the list of properties differs from https://datapackage.org/specifications/data-package/? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@nichtich |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As mentioned in README.md of the pull request, local file pathes cannot be mapped to RDF resources. At least the root level |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
This has been discussed in #218 but the discussion is quite old and we should better separate JSON-LD context for Data Package because its easier to solve. In short we have 14 fields, some of which can be mapped directly to RDF. The RDF properties should be aligned with DCAT ontology because DCAT and Data Package have large overlap in their use case, so a JSON-LD context for datapackage.json would allow to serve both from one data source.
First draft of a mapping of Data Package to RDF:
homepage= foaf:homepageid= dct:identifierimage= foaf:imgtitle= dct:titlecontributors= dct:contributor (also mentioned in DCAT) a foaf:Agenttitle= foaf:name ?path= foaf:homepage ?email=foaf:mboxrole= ?organization= ?created= dct:created (also mentioned in DCAT)description= dct:descriptionkeywords= dct:keywordlicenses= dct:licensenamecan be converted to an URIpath= foaf:homepage ?title= dct:title ?name= foaf:name ?profileshould not be includedresourcesdoes not need to be included until there is a JSON-LD context for Data Resource (another issue, can be done later)sources= prov:wasDerivedFrom ?title= dct:titlepath= URI or homepage of the source?email= foaf:mbox ?version= dct:versionBeta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions