W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2012

RE: ADMS call tomorrow, RADion proposal (potentially affects DCAT)

From: Maali, Fadi <fadi.maali@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:18:11 -0000
Message-ID: <316ADBDBFE4F4D4AA4FEEF7496ECAEF90797D7EB@EVS1.ac.nuigalway.ie>
To: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>
Cc: "Public GLD WG" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, "Shukair, Gofran" <Gofran.shakair@deri.org>
Hi Phil,

Thanks for bringing this up. Gofran and me will attend tomorrow call.

I find the idea of defining RADion very useful. Linking DCAT and ADMS
together is helpful especially that they are very much related yet there
is no clear containment relation (subclassing one from the other is not
possible).
I had a look at the schemas you sent and they look fine to me. 

IMHO, I think defining DCAT classes as subclasses of RADion is something
that we (the GLD WG) can discuss later once the status of RADion is
clearer.

Regards,
Fadi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
> Sent: 13 March 2012 16:58
> To: Shukair, Gofran; Maali, Fadi
> Cc: Public GLD WG
> Subject: ADMS call tomorrow, RADion proposal (potentially affects
DCAT)
> 
> Hi Gofran and Fadi,
> 
> I don't know whether you have this in your diaries but tomorrow at
> 14:00 UK/IE time is what should be the final call within the ISA
> Programme about ADMS.
> 
> The agenda is at [1] and is essentially issue-bashing so that Makx can
> produce the 'final version' - or version 1.0 or whatever you want to
> call it.
> 
> My reason for bringing it up here and now is that once the results of
> that call have been written into the spec, that's what we're going to
> be given here in the GLD to take forward with the strong hope that,
> ignoring relatively trivial formatting changes, we'll then publish it
> as a FPWD. Therefore it's important that if GLD has any views on ADMS
> they're put forward soon, preferably in that meeting.
> 
> Most of the issues are relatively minor and focus on the allowed
values
> for various properties. Personally I regard these as out of scope for
> the spec although very much in scope for the particular implementation
> ISA is aiming at (Joinup) so I'm not too concerned how that aspect
goes
> in this context.
> 
> What I *am* concerned about is the proposal I've put forward to create
> a new vocabulary called RADion: Repositiory - Asset - Distribtion.
> 
> This came about when I was trying to reconcile ADMS with DCAT and
> another vocabulary that is not scheduled to come to GLD concerning
open
> source software forges, called ADMS.F/OSS. It's clear that ADMS, DCAT
> and ADMS.F/OSS have a lot in common, at least in terms of class
> structure, but they differ in the detail as, of course, they're
> designed to describe slightly different things in different contexts.
> The hope is that each can be made up of sub classes of RADion although
> to outward appearances they would be almost entirely unaffected (DCAT
> has a lot of implementation, people are building ADMS-based systems
> already). The attached zip file has RADion and ADMS as UML and RDF
> schemata.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> Phil.
> 
> 
> [1]
>
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/CITnet/confluence/display/ISACV/Virtual+Me
> eting+2012.03.14
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> http://www.w3.org/egov/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 00:18:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:26 UTC