[ckan-discuss] package relationships

[David Raznick]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:

> On 14 February 2011 18:33, Stefano Costa <stefano.costa at okfn.org> wrote:
> > Hi CKANers,
> > I'd like to ask (again) guidance on package relationships. This is a
> > much wanted feature in the Italian case, because of the large number of
> > datasets that we will be able to get by means of webscraping,
> > translating to sane formats and other ways. We would like to be able to
> > track derivative packages. In fact I've already created such a
> > relationship http://it.ckan.net/package/linked-open-camera as a test.
> >
> > What I'd like to know is whether this way of creating relationships is
> > going to become the standard way or something different (e.g. based on
> > extra key-value pairs) is planned/proposed.
>
> I think proper relationships are probably best though one can abuse
> key/values for this :)
>
> The main thing missing (at least from linked data perspective --
> correct me if i am wrong Richard!) is the ability to add more info to
> the link -- i.e. want not just to link but to say there these are
> linked and have 100k triples pointing between them.

Adding additional
> metadata to links is reasonably straightforward but does require a
> change to the core model and hence a migration. If someone wants to
> jump in and try this they'll get full support and guidance from the
> devs :)
>

Package relationships already have a 'comments' field and this is used in
the current ckan.net relationships.  So this is already implemented :)
The comments are in the bracket next to the link in the wui.

However, the people involved with this still ended up using packages extras
anyway with a link:package=value convention.

For linked packages should we follow their convention?   If we do, we should
make anything of the form link:package a link in the same way trac does.
This would be nice as you could add links in the description field of the
package too.

Nonetheless, I personally agree that package relationships better suit
*linked datasets*.  I do not think however that package relationships suit
*derived datasets* better than the resource group proposal.  Currently the
derived relationship type is not being used in ckan.net at all.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-discuss/attachments/20110216/c345c4f9/attachment.htm>