Re: ADMS high level comments

On 12 October 2012 11:40, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> 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 http://www.w3.org/ns/adms, 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.

s

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