@aisaac, thanks for the comment.

I understand your point, I am not sure that your point offers a reason to change the property name in the future. Surely that is something we cannot do at this stage.

Anyway, I agree that your observation is something to consider for discussion in future. For this reason, I have labelled this issue as "future work".

@aisaac: I was reconsidering this issue after a while. My apologies for having kept this pending so long.

I think dcat:catalog links to a resource that catalogs and that is cataloged. So I am not sure of an actual inconsistency with the name conventions.

Besides, changing the name of dcat:catalog at this stage breaks the back-compatibility with DCAT 2, which is something that we would like to avoid.

I wonder if your point implies any concerns that I am not fully catching. Otherwise, if you have no objections I would close this issue.

Hi @riccardoAlbertoni sorry for taking so long. I missed the notification.
Actually your answer may alleviate my worry: dcat:catalogue points to a resource (Catalogue) that is considered to being catalogued into the subject Catalogue, just like objects of dcat:dataset statements for the same Catalogue?
If yes then this would sound ok to me. But then can I ask for the definition to be clarified? It currently reads "A catalog whose contents are of interest in the context of this catalog". This sounds a much weaker relationship than what you're hinting now.
How about changing the definition to something like "A catalogue that is listed in the catalog because its contents are of interest in the context of this catalog."? Such wording would be more fitting what I expect for what you say, and much better aligned with the definitions of other sub-properties of dcterms:hasPart (dcat:record, dcat:service).

Thanks, @aisaac
I would slightly rephrase your proposal as in the following

"A catalog that is listed in this catalog because its contents are of interest."

Would this rephasing work for you?

@riccardoAlbertoni said:

Thanks, @aisaac
I would slightly rephrase your proposal as in the following

"A catalog that is listed in this catalog because its contents are of interest."

Would this rephasing work for you?

Or, more simply:

A catalog that is listed in this catalog.

This would be in line with the definitions of dcat:dataset and dcat:service. Or there's a reason why having a metadata record about a catalogue is different from having records of datasets and services?

A catalog that is listed in this catalog.

It works for me.

@aisaac: PR #1370 has been merged, if there are no objections, I propose to close this issue.

Yes it's perfect!