- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:53:20 +0100
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 19/10/12 04:23, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote: > Going back to measuring up changes, and given the above, I think that: > - An "asset translation" is a bigger change and results in a related > (but distinct) asset. A linguistic translation hardly ever happens, > but a conceptual translation might, see immediatelly below. > - An alternative representation is a re-distribution of the same > asset instance; unless the target representation does not support all > the features of the source representation used by the asset, in which > case we need an "asset translation" into a similar but distinct asset > that uses the target representation. I have some sympathy with that and I think that is indeed how ADMS means it, representation is just a distribution issue. The problem was/is that intuitively to me the term "Representation Technique" would encompass a choice of, for example, rendering a semantic asset in OWL or XSD instead of UML. Not simply serializing some OWL to Turtle instead of to RDF/XML. That is more than a change of distribution. I'm working with various groups (both government and UN related) who want to support such a representation choice in asset registries and hence might look for that capability in ADMS before deciding whether to adopt it. Dave
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 09:53:52 UTC