DatasetSeries: adding dcat:inSeries and its inverse, updating the dataset examples.

[riccardoAlbertoni]

Updating the PR #1292 on dataset series to include the result of the discussion we had in issue #1307

This PR replaces dcterms:isPartOf and its inverse dcterms:hasPart with dcat:inSeries and its inverse dcat:hasSeriesMember.

Some people insist on keeping both directions, and the examples in #1292 are using both dcterms:isPartOf and its inverse dcterms:hasPart, so for the moment, the PR maintains both directions.

DIFF with PR #1292 https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2Fw3c%2Fdxwg%2Fdcat-dataseries-issue1272%2Fdcat%2Findex.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2Fw3c%2Fdxwg%2Fdcat-dataseries-issue1272UpdatedWithDiscussionOn1307%2Fdcat%2Findex.html

[andrea-perego]

For the inverse of dcat:inSeries I suggest we use something shorter: dcat:hasMember.

Another option for the names of these properties is dcat:hasParent / dcat:hasChild , following the terminology used in ISO 19115 for dataset series.

[dr-shorthair]

Need to add inSeries to the list of properties added to dcat:Dataset (in the intro section)

[dr-shorthair]

Need to add inSeries to the list of properties added to dcat:Dataset (in the intro text on Dataset section)

[riccardoAlbertoni]

Need to add inSeries to the list of properties added to dcat:Dataset (in the intro text on Dataset section)

Thanks, done.

[riccardoAlbertoni]

For the inverse of dcat:inSeries, I suggest we use something shorter: dcat:hasMember.

Another option for the names of these properties is dcat:hasParent / dcat:hasChild , following the terminology used in ISO 19115 for dataset series.

@andrea-perego:
Yes, the names are long. However, I wonder if mentioning 'series' in the property names can help recall and use these properties more coherently. This also considering possible confusion with dcterms:hasPart and other parts-related properties. What do you think?

[andrea-perego]

@andrea-perego:
Yes, the names are long. However, I wonder if mentioning 'series' in the property names can help recall and use these properties more coherently. This also considering possible confusion with dcterms:hasPart and other parts-related properties. What do you think?

I don't think it's necessary to recall the scope of this property, as it has its own domain (dcat:DatasetSeries). For the same reason, including "series" in the property name looks redundant, and I am not very worried about being confused with dcterms:hasPart.

However, if the close semantics of "part" and "series" raises concerns on improper use, we should consider other options.

dcat:hasChild / dcat:hasParent are a good alternative, IMO, and they reflect the hierarchical structure of dataset series, as already mentioned in PR #1292 and in #1307 (comment)

[riccardoAlbertoni]

@andrea-perego:
Yes, the names are long. However, I wonder if mentioning 'series' in the property names can help recall and use these properties more coherently. This also considering possible confusion with dcterms:hasPart and other parts-related properties. What do you think?

I don't think it's necessary to recall the scope of this property, as it has its own domain (dcat:DatasetSeries). For the same reason, including "series" in the property name looks redundant, and I am not very worried about being confused with dcterms:hasPart.

However, if the close semantics of "part" and "series" raises concerns on improper use, we should consider other options.

dcat:hasChild / dcat:hasParent are a good alternative, IMO, and they reflect the hierarchical structure of dataset series, as already mentioned in PR #1292 and in #1307 (comment)

If you think dcat:hasSeriesMember is too long and not acceptable then dcat:hasMember will be my choice.

Using dcat:hasChild and dcat:hasParent helps those familiar with ISO dataset series. However, we target a larger audience. In this target, I suspect people might have different views of what is considered a child of a dataset (potentially, anything originated by a dataset can be considered a 'child'!? and that might be confusing).

[riccardoAlbertoni]

I am going to merge this with dcat-dataseries-issue1272 PR #1292 so that we have only one updated version for the dataset series as having two seems confusing commenters. We still need to decide the property name between series and dataset (i.e., if we used dcat:hasSeriesMember or dcat:hasMember), but it is an adjustment we can do later, in PR #1292.