- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:51:59 +0000
- 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