Re: [dxwg] versioning and resource status (#1238)

> Without being familiar with ADMS, and following @dr-shorthair 's concern about incoherent inferences due to multiple ontology imports, it seems to me the operational criteria for whether to import or not should involve what kind of assertions/restrictions/implications are brought by the imported vocabulary. If the import target is simple a bunch of owl:class assertions with rdfs:label and other annotation properties, maybe some rdfs:subClassOf assertions (internal to the vocabulary), then the import is not problematic. On the other hand, if the import has a bunch of domain and range restrictions, transitive, inverse properties, owl:restriction assertions, and other statements that have inferencing implications, then there is good reason to decouple the ontologies-- implement local classes and properties, and offer a mapping ontology that can be imported in a profile to bring in the implications from the more 'semantically rich' ontology. I think this is the pattern used in SOSA and makes a lot of sense to me.
> 
> So, what kind of implications does adms:status bring?

I share your concern in general, but here I think we are in the first case. ADMS is very lightweight, AFAIK, no restrictions, nor domain restriction are provided for adms:status. There is a range restriction to skos:Concept, which shouldn't be problematic.  Besides, we have already used a bit of ADMS in the non-normative part of DCAT 2 ( see adms:identifier).  I do not see issues if we continue to use ADMS in the non-normative part for providing guidelines, similarly to what we did for adms:identifier.  

I am not sure we can use w3c vocabularies that are not REC in the DCAT normative part. ADMS is a w3c Note, so we might need extra care in the case we want to have ADMS in the normative part.
One possible way to overcome this concern is to consider minting new equivalent or sub-super terms in DCAT namespace. However, we need very solid motivations for minting adms-"equivalent" terms in DCAT.  The decision might also depend on the number of terms that we want to borrow from ADMS ( at the moment there is at least another adms term under discussion   see adms:versionNotes for  https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/89)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1238#issuecomment-638312966 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2020 16:35:35 UTC