W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > May 2018

Re: [dxwg] PROF - ADMS alignment

From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 21:26:23 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-392191450-1527283581-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@rob-metalinkage , looking at the correspondences between PROF and ADMS, my understanding is that ADMS provides already the general classes and properties, with the exception of (a) the relationships used to specify dependencies, and (b) the "resource role" (validation, etc.).

More precisely, I think that `adms:Asset` covers the notion of profile, and `adms:AssetDistribution` the one of formal and/or human-readable definition/representation of that profile. It could be argued about the need of defining a profile as a subclass of `adms:Asset` etc., but again I don't see them as something with a semantic scope outside or only partially overlapping with ADMS.

Please note that I'm not saying that ADMS covers all the requirements of PROF: I rather see the two vocabularies as complementary, and only partially overlapping (such overlaps being mainly related to annotation properties - title, description, etc.). More precisely, PROF addresses cases where you need to know which are dependencies, and which of the available profile definitions can be used for doing what (the "resource role"). ADMS has been instead specifically designed for documenting an "asset", not only to make it discoverable, but also to provide contextual information (e.g., who's the publisher, which versions of an asset exist, etc.). Therefore, the use of both can be mutually beneficial - e.g.:
- It would be facilitate adoption across communities
- PROF defines relationships that extend the contextual information missing in ADMS, whereas the ADMS approach to asset versioning could turn to be useful when specifying dependencies (if I'm not mistaken, the idea of specifying dependencies by referring to the specific version of a standard, instead of the latest version of it, was discussed during the last f2f).

Similar considerations can be done for VOAF - which, based on the current discussion threads, could be used whenever a profile can be classified as an RDF vocabulary / OWL ontology.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/240#issuecomment-392191450 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 25 May 2018 21:26:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:59 UTC