Re: Business Voc and ADMS

Thanks very much Dave, answers below:

On 06/09/2012 15:03, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[..]
>
> The issues I've noted on skimming through the current state are:
>
> (1) legal:companyType appears to duplicate org:classification. The RDF
> states a subclass relationship but that is not reflected in the
> specification text and it is not clear why they are not equivalent.

The Business voc makes three sub properties of org:classification:

- companyType (for Plc, LLP, GmbH etc.)
- companyActivity (NACE code, SIC code etc.)
- companyStatus (trading, in receivership etc.)

The intention is to provide specific semantics for those. My reading of 
the org:classification property was that this kind of specialisation was 
encouraged, no? In RDF, all of the sub properties (helpfully) inherit 
the range of skos:Concept from org:classification.

>
> (2) The relationship between legal:identifier and org:identfier needs to
> be clarified. Org extends skos:notation and adopts existing practice
> there, it would be helpful to at least explain why that's not
> appropriate for legal:identifier.

Sure. It's because skos:notation is a datatype property, usually used 
with typed string, whereas legal:identifer is an object property with a 
range of adms:Identifier which is based on the UN/CEFACT complex type. 
This is relevant to your next point too.

>
> (3) The specification uses the term "Abstract Data Type" but does not
> define it. Presumably it is defined in ADMS but (a) that means this spec
> fails to standalone, (b) this should simply be rdfs:range.

Right - I need to be clearer. The ISA Programme vocabs are concept 
schemes that can be expressed in any technology, notably RDF *and* XML. 
Something I need to bring to the group is how we handle the latter. 
Ideally conneg would return the relevant schema. Therefore, it really as 
an abstract data type, made less abstract by the (multiple) schemata.

>
> (4) Specific Abstract Data Types are mention but none of them are
> defined: Text, Code, Identifier, Address, Legal Entity.
> [Of course, I realize that "Legal Entity" is supposed to refer to
> legal:LegalEntity but that should be explicit.]

Yes, I should have defined Code, Text etc. that's sloppy (I need to copy 
and paste the defs from the ADMS spec). In RDF, Code = skos:Concept, 
Text = rdfs:Literal but that doesn't apply as neatly in XML.

>
> The latter two worry me, I'd rather we didn't end up introducing new
> terminology for expressing RDFS/OWL vocabularies.

Absolutely not! But I need to make it triply clear that we're not trying 
to do anything like that.

>
>> 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.
>
> I've no objection to this.
>
> Minor: I would prefer use of owl:DatatypeProperty and owl:ObjectProperty
> where appropriate rather than making everything an rdf:Property - that
> conveys intention a little more clearly.

Irene made a similar comment, I'll do that before pushing the schemas to /ns

>
>> 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.
>
> I thought we talked about conformance also requirement conformance with
> the given semantics for the terms.
>
> If I use legal:legalIdentifier but give it's value as a string am I
> conforming?

No. It's an object property that has a range of adms:Identifier for 
which the advice is to use skos:notation to provide the string (plus 
other properties that effectively provide metadata about the string - 
based on the UN/CEFACT model).

>
> Suppose I use a URI there, such as one minted by UK Companies House but
> not declared as an adms:Identifier, am I conforming?

One could take a narrow view and say yes. The inference being that the 
Companies House URI is an adms:Identifier. However, the model breaks at 
that point since all the data you get back from a Companies House URI is 
about the particular company whereas the properties of the 
adms:Identifier class are about the identifier (it has a skos: notation 
of 04285910, it was issued by Companies House on 12/09/2001 etc.) ... so 
it would be a case of GIGO.

Actually, something analogous to skos-xl might be useful for this and 
other cases - i.e. "notation-xl". There is a string, like "04285910" and 
I want to make statements about it beyond just its type. That 
potentially gets us into provenance as well?

On conformance, should we not only say that it means using the classes 
and properties presented rather than minting new ones, but also using 
them in accordance with the data model presented?

Phil.


-- 


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

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

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 16:40:33 UTC