Re: ADMS high level comments

On 12/10/12 05:52, James McKinney wrote:

>> (3) The one thing that you do need with semantic assets, that you many not need elsewhere, is information on closure. You need to be able to state that some particular enumeration of codes in a codelist is complete and that a code not listed there is invalid. Is this use case supposed to be supported by ADMS?
>> I see that you can represent hierarchical containment of assets through adms:includedAsset but there's nothing about closure or completeness either as guidelines in the document or as a metadata term.
> Wouldn't you need some OWL for that? e.g. owl:oneOf for your "code not listed there is invalid" case. ADMS wants to be technology-neutral, so not sure how that sort of axiom is generally described in such documents. I assume users of ADMS could add these sorts of axioms, and that ADMS need not define any itself. It's possible not all users of ADMS will want the same axioms.

My question was about whether the use case is supposed to be within 
scope rather than the technology approach.

On technology approach then no you don't *have* to use OWL, what you 
need is a way to state whether a collection of assets is closed or not.
You don't have to use something that is intrinsically closed. But if you 
did then, for example, RDF lists are closed.

>> (4) There's a lot of use of the term "file". This seems inappropriate in a W3C spec, especially one about semantic assets. Surely a common case will be things like code lists, represented in SKOS and made available as Linked Data.
>> This may be "just" a terminology problem but it is a jarring one.
> I searched the document, and all mentions of "file" are near mentions of "distribution." Can you point to a specific problematic case?

Why does putting "file" near to "distribution" make it any better?

If I want to register a Linked Data publication of a skos:ConceptScheme 
then the "distribution" is presumably the URI for the skos:ConceptScheme 
resource. When dereferenced with an appropriate accept header that will 
return some RDF, perhaps extracted from a triple store, which will 
include some skos:hasTopConcept links which I could then follow.

None of that involves files.

There might *also* be a file in a particular RDF syntax that contains 
all the skos:ConceptScheme.

The question is whether ADMS is about registering semantic assets (which 
a Linked Data publication of a skos:ConceptScheme definitely is) or 
about a repository of dump files. It reads as if it is intended to be 
limited to the latter, which brings us back to the question of how 
different it is to dcat.


Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 08:41:24 UTC