Re: ADMS high level comments

On 12 October 2012 11:40, Dave Reynolds <> wrote:
> 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.

I see UML used in, although I suspect UML is
informative and the normative defiitions are the ones in natural
language below that. One can have an "enumeration" in UML which
behaves just like OWL's oneOf.


Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 09:51:56 UTC