After some back and forth with mandatory, recommended, optional and minimal definitions, draft 2 v0.03 has changed the approach to distinguish mandatory, recommended and optional properties and there is no mention of minimum/minimal properties anymore.
Altough no doubt it is an improvement some things may remain confusing:
1 - Definitions at section 5 are not consistent as it looks like mandatory has different meanings for classes and properties once the "minimal" concept has been introduced in mandatory properties "a receiver MAY refuse to process the information for a particular resource if the information is not provided"
Proposal is to introduce also the same nuance in the mandatory classes definition to make both of them consistent or drop that additional restriction, given that when senders are required (must) to provide that information if they don't do it then they are not going to comply with the DCAT AP and so any DCAT AP compliant receiver may refuse to process the information in any case.
2 - Do we need an optional class definition and an empty 6.2 Optional classes section while we don't have any currently? If it is just a placeholder during the AP evolution phase I suggest to remove both of them before final version.
See also for background:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/issue/mandat…
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/issue/use-ma…
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/issue/sectio…
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/issue/cleare…
Comments
My response:
1 - I wil lremove the bit about a receiver refusuing to process information.
2 - In line with my proposal to change CatalogRecord from excluded to optional see: http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/discussion/excluded-versus-optional-classes), I propose to delete the definition of excluded class from 5. CatalogRecord will then be described in section 6.2 and section 6.3 will be deleted.
Will work for me.
Included in draft 3.