Re: Business Voc and ADMS

Phil,

Thanks a lot for the progress report! Very impressive and much appreciated. This reminds me: we need to reserve some time to discuss 'People' vocab (not in the normal GLD hours) but a separate call. Can you please organise this (on the usual IRC channel and dial-in)? And of course, if anyone else from the WG wants to join us, feel free to do so.

I gotta send regrets for today, though (SFI Centre/DERI funding last mile …)

Cheers,
	   Michael

--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel.: +353 91 495730
http://mhausenblas.info/

On 6 Sep 2012, at 14:12, Phil Archer wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> An update on progress with a couple of the ISA Programme inputs.
> 
> Business Core Vocabulary
> ========================
> This vocabulary is gaining the most attention with existing implementation by Open Corporates, test implementations going on in Sweden and active discussions around its use by the Belgian company register.
> 
> I have created a W3C/GLD version of the spec and put it in the Mercurial repository [1] with the RDF schema in the same directory.
> 
> Due to the interest in this vocabulary right now (and active promotion by the EU and its contractors) I am keen to secure approval from the GLD to publish this as an FPWD, modulo any comments of course, particularly from Dave (cf. Org Ontology which this sub classes).
> 
> Alongside the spec, I'd like to publish the RDF schema and associated namespace document. Currently there is a holding page at http://www.w3.org/ns/legal# that is becoming increasingly embarrassing.
> 
> ADMS
> ====
> I put a W3C version of the ADMS spec in Mercurial before the summer break [3] and revised the RDF schema in the light of comments from Dave and Irene. I took another look at it today and there may be more to do of course but an updated version of the schema is now at [4].
> 
> Again, there is significant interest and discussion around ADMS in Europe and, politically, we need it published as an FPWD if the WG is happy to advance it to that stage.
> 
> A schema is in place at http://www.w3.org/ns/adms# but this is the old one. I'd like to make sure that the version at [4] really is an improvement and, if so, make that the live version.
> 
> Conformance
> ===========
> Both of these documents include a suggested text for conformance on which I would be grateful to receive feedback and, when appropriate, WG approval. I *think* it's what the group decided on the call we had a few weeks back with Rufus but it needs WG review.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Phil.
> 
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/legal/index.html
> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/legal/legal20120906.rdf
> [3] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html
> [4] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/adms20120906.rdf
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> http://www.w3.org/egov/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:25:16 UTC