ADMS RDF

• From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
• Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:10:59 +0100
• To: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <4FEC7403.4010305@gmail.com>

Hi Phil,

Follow up from GLD call ... glancing at the ADMS document I noticed some 
oddities that are reflected in the RDF [1].

Specifically, there are a number entities that look like aliases for 
skos:Concept. For example:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="&skos;Concept">
     <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Asset Type</rdfs:label>
     <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en" rdf:parseType="Literal">The 
skos:Concept class fully represents the ADMS class of Asset Type (see 
section on the <xh:a xh:href="#Code">Code</xh:a> datatype for 
details).</rdfs:comment>
     <vann:usageNote xml:lang="en">Used in ADMS to provide a 
classification of a Semantic Asset according to a controlled vocabulary, 
e.g. code list, metadata schema.</vann:usageNote>
     <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&skosDoc;" />
     <dcterms:identifier>skos:Concept</dcterms:identifier>
   </rdf:Description>

With similar declarations for: "Code", "Interoperability Level", 
"Representation Technique" and "Status".

I suspect this is a slip and that the intention was to introduce actual 
classes which would be sub-class (or equivalent-class) to skos:Concept.

[If it's not a slip then this is a modelling style which I would prefer 
us to avoid. It means that we are assigning alternative labels to 
skos:Concept itself - which is problematic both technically and socially.]

Cheers,
Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/ns/adms.rdf

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 15:11:30 UTC