Re: ADMS spec document update

On 19/10/2012 10:53, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 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.

That's obviously very important information, Dave, thank you. Just in 
case there is any doubt, GLD has complete autonomy over the spec. If a 
potential user, especially a potential public sector user, finds the 
handling of translations, representation techniques etc. insufficient, 
then ADMS must be changed/clarified/extended/whatever.

Gofran has pointed out to me separately today that there was discussion 
in the original ADMS WG about wanting to distinguish between machine 
translations, human translations and machine translations polished by 
humans. As ever, the current ADMS spec represents a compromise between 
different interested parties.

Politically, it would be easier for me if any changes to the handling of 
these issues were to follow rather than precede FPWD but the WG is 
sovereign in all matters.

Phil.

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 10:07:10 UTC