[ckan-discuss] Next version of the LOD cloud diagram. Please provide input, so that your dataset is included.

Thu Sep 9 10:22:10 BST 2010

William Waites wrote:
> On 10-09-09 01:33, John Bywater wrote:
>> My question was: since you don't like email form fields, which form
>> fields would you prefer to see instead?
> 
> ... and there should be zero or more such author
> fields
> 
> ... and it must be possible for an attribute of author
> to refer to some other entity (a good example would
> be their organisational affiliation, which would
> be itself identified by a URI, which could itself
> have attributes...).
> 
> I'm not really expecting CKAN to do this at the present
> stage, just trying to give you an idea of the shape
> of the data being treated by the linked data people
> (and the ISO19139/INSPIRE/GEMINI2 crowd as well)
> 

Okay, thanks for that, and the previous emails about the same.

The CKAN domain model for authorship appears to be in the same position 
as the CKAN model for resources was when there was just a download_url.

The commentary then was, "oh no, there's only one download url, and I've 
got six!" So resources were modelled more carefully, and now a package 
can have 0..* resources.

Something similar could be done for authors. We could adopt a standard 
model for authorship. I guess one has to start somewhere!

J.

> -w