References
This issue has been reported by French IGN.
http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/mailman/archives/dcat_application_profile-geo/2015-August/000195.html
Explanation
During the 2nd WG meeting of 15 April 2015, an issue on how to encode the resource locator was raised. There, proposals on the different types of resource locators were accepted.
During the public review, French IGN proposes to change the wording (function code not provided) in table 2/resource locator (Draft 6 of the GeoDCAT-AP specification) and put this line first in the list since the function code element is not explicitly asked by INSPIRE. Therefore, in most cases it might not be provided.
In addition, the mapping to be used in this case should be in first position in the list. Moreover the wording is not precise enough: it is not “missing value for function code”, but “function code not provided”.
They also ask whether it is sure that the mapping of “offlineAccess” to “accessURL” seems semantically strange. Why not using foaf:page, for the mapping of order (as it is done for search)?
Comments
This was discussed during the 5th WG meeting of 15 September 2015: the syntax are correctly captured by the current bindings, no additional bindings were identified, no further changes were made in GeoDCAT-AP Draft 7.