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

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

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:51:59 +0000
Message-ID: <4F604E1F.3020006@w3.org>
To: "Maali, Fadi" <fadi.maali@deri.org>
CC: Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, "Shukair, Gofran" <Gofran.shakair@deri.org>


On 14/03/2012 00:18, Maali, Fadi wrote:
> 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.

Thanks - I appreciate the sanity check!

>
> 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.

+1 absolutely

Phil

>
>> -----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
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 07:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:03:31 UTC