[ckan-discuss] Guidance for use of Author and Maintainer fields

Wed Jul 28 10:51:54 BST 2010

On 10-07-28 02:43, Glen Barnes wrote:
> The OSM method seems to work quite well. Essentially there are
> proposals for tags that can be discussed and then ratified as being
> official. We don't have to go down the whole voting route just yet but
> why don't we do this:

This is getting perilously close to the reason for RDF...

I would suggest that rather than the willy-nilly approach that
OSM uses (horse=yes) we try as far as possible to use tags
that can be mapped easily to RDF predicates.

Proposal #1: Tags SHOULD be of the form "prefix:tag" where
prefix is the usual well-known prefix that would be used in
an RDF/N3 serialisation.

Proposal #2: Have a special prefix, "prefix" to explicitly define
prefixes to be used elsewhere in the record. So you might have,

    prefix:dc=http://purl.org/dc/terms
    dc:description=Some description

#2 might prove a bit awkward in practice though.

Is it time to start looking at ripping out the SQL back-end and
replacing it with an RDF store? Is there anyone that is
interested in helping to do this? If we could keep as much of
the user-interface code as possible it shouldn't be too hard.

Cheers,
-w

-- 
William Waites           <william.waites at okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
		http://ordf.org/