ISSUE-46 (ConceptualModels): Should GLD vocabularies define conceptual models too? [Registered Organization Vocabulary]

ISSUE-46 (ConceptualModels): Should GLD vocabularies define conceptual models too? [Registered Organization Vocabulary]

http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/46

Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
On product: Registered Organization Vocabulary

ADMS and RegOrg start by defining an abstract conceptual model, and then documenting a binding of that conceptual model into RDF.

This has the advantage of making the spec's intellectual work more re-usable for bindings into other formats.

However, it has the disadvantage of making the specs more cumbersome for GLD's primary audience, RDF users. They have to step through an indirection from the conceptual model to the actual RDF classes and properties, and have to deal with “abstract types” that are quite meaningless from a pure RDF point of view. This becomes quite clear when looking at the UML diagrams in these specs. They are pretty useless to an RDF user. But it's possible to tell almost the entire story of a vocabulary in a UML diagram.

There's also the point in our charter that explicitly rules anything related to XML out of scope.

The question is whether the specs can be made maximally useful for RDF users, while still being of use to those who want to define bindings from the same underlying conceptual model into other formats.

This should be considered an issue filed against both RegOrg and ADMS. Depending on the resolution, it might become an issue against all other vocabularies.

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 08:30:15 UTC