[ckan-dev] ckanext-rdf: Consolitdated RDF handling for CKAN

Wed Jun 1 15:02:20 UTC 2011

Hi all,
Related to this topic, which do you think would be the more "natural"
routing to a package RDF representation?

 * /package/{id}.rdf
 * /api/rest/package/{id}.rdf
 * /record/{id}.rdf    (semantic.ckan.net uses this one)

I'd say I prefer the first one, but maybe is not conceptually correct?

Cheers,

Adrià

2011/5/31 Friedrich Lindenberg <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:17 PM, William Waites <ww at styx.org> wrote:
>> ] * Differentiation between catalogue records and datasets (*ducks
>> ] spanish cucumber*)
>>
>> Well this is an important one. You won't be able to speak the
>> DCat protocol that we agreed in Edinburgh if you do this.
>
> Ok, how cheap do I get this? Will a BNode and a short prayer to
> Berners-Lee get me in or do we need to actually have a different URI
> for catalogue entries?
>
>> I guess the biggest problem with this is when you use CKAN as an
>> aggregator of different kinds of sources, CSW, Socrata, whatever,
>> and then re-export that as RDF you get generation loss just like
>> when you copy a cassette tape and then copy the copy, only worse.
>
> Hah, my intention is to make things even worse: I'll try and create a
> few normalizer scripts to run over the data so that finally everything
> will be CKAN packages that slightly remind the interested viewer of
> the fact they once were in an inferior catalogue ;) That includes
> formats, liceses, categories etc. Let's see how it works out,
> definetly the R&D aspect in all of this.
>
>> CKAN's data model has to seriously improve for this to not be the
>> case, but I don't want to reopen the debate about the model. So
>> long as round tripping is possible one day...
>
> Goal is the 14th.
>
> - Friedrich
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>