[ckan-discuss] Format / resource type dilemma

Mon Dec 5 12:49:25 GMT 2011

On 1 December 2011 17:32, Richard Cyganiak <richard at cyganiak.de> wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2011, at 12:48, David Read wrote:
>> @Rufus can you say what the intention is for 'resource type'?
>
> I'm going to throw in my €0.02 here…
>
> I'd like to see this field hardcoded to have the following values:

Completely agreed re 'hardcoding' - the lack of dropdown forcing a
choice is simply a UI oversight at the present (which we will aim to
fix asap - see http://trac.ckan.org/ticket/1506)

> - File
> - API
> - Example
> - Metadata
> - Documentation
> - Code

I'm with you on file, API, Example, and Code but not sure about
Metadata or Documentation (Metadata is what is already in CKAN and
shouldn't Documentation be in or reffed from notes section)?

I'd also like to add:

datapackage as an option for situation where we do have proper
datapackage's as per the Data Package spec (now here):

<http://www.dataprotocols.org/en/latest/packages.html>

> In the case of an RDF dataset, this might be used as follows:
>
> - zipped download of the entire RDF dump: “file”
> - SPARQL endpoint: “api”
> - a resolvable URI pointing to one example resource: “example”
> - an associated RDF Schema file: “metadata”
> - a PDF white paper describing the dataset: “docs”
> - the link to the GitHub project page: “code”

When finalized, all of this should merge into the spec for this field
defined in the 'official' location, i.e.:

<http://wiki.ckan.org/Domain_Model/Resource>

(We could put some of this in the Discuss page there for future reference!)

Rufus