Re: ADMS review

Here's my domain model review.

1. Small fixes

* its contains > it contains
* user terms -> use terms
* Usage note> -> Usage note:
* Seamntic > Semantic
* In the tables in the Properties and Relationships section, ensure all left-hand cells end with a colon

2. I am unable to parse "A level as defined in a list such the European Interoperability Framework [[EIF2]] for which an Asset is relevant." Similarly, "The interoperability level for which the Semantic Asset is relevant."

3. Why do we not include classes in the "Properties and Relationships" section (which should be renamed "Vocabulary Reference" if we add classes)?

3. I'd appreciate an index at the beginning of the Properties and Relationships section. It's also hard to determine what properties go with which classes. Could we group properties under the class they are related to for easier reading, as is done in DCAT? For properties that can be used on many classes, like dcterms:description, we can add those in a catch-all subsection, or repeat them in each subsection.

5. Why do some tables have the header "Object Type Property:" and others "Datatype Property:"? Why not just "Property:"?

6. Should the range of "adms:contactPoint" not be specified for the same reasons as in http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/45 ?

7. Do we need adms:distribution? Isn't dcat:distribution sufficient?

8. Do we need adms:relatedWebPage? Why not foaf:page?

9. Is there a reason the domain is missing from nearly every property in the vocabulary?

10. representationTechnique seems to be an unusual term to describe "The machine-readable language in which a Distribution is expressed. This is more fine-grained than file format, for example 'Word 2003'". I don't have a better suggestion, though.

James

On 2013-04-07, at 4:43 PM, James McKinney wrote:

> Here's a first review that doesn't go into the domain model.
> 
> 1. Small fixes:
> 
> * xml -> XML
> * data set -> dataset
> * anad -> and
> * 'a document' -> a document (without quotes)
> * Semantic Interoperability -> Semantic interoperability (lowercase "i")
> * consuption -> consumption
> * a few missing periods at the ends of paragraphs
> 
> 2. I find the document's first sentence to be a much clearer description of semantic assets than the introduction's first sentence. Can we simply re-use the clearer sentence?
> 
> 3. Most of the introduction is actually about explaining why we have ADMS when we already have DCAT. Perhaps this can be moved to a new "Rationale" section, maybe as a subsection of "Vocabulary Overview"?
> 
> 4. Add an "Acknowledgements" header for the three "The original development of ADMS ...", "ADMS was first developed by PwC EU Services ...", and "This version of ADMS ..." paragraphs, and perhaps move it to the end of the document, like in ORG.
> 
> 5. Add a "Conformance" header before "A data interchange, however that interchange occurs, ..." and move this section before Namespaces.
> 
> 6. It's unusual that the terms described in the Terminology section are never used elsewhere, i.e. "Semantic interoperability" and "Semantic interoperability asset". We use "semantic asset" everywhere, which is defined in the introduction, but it is never said whether it is a synonym of "semantic interoperability asset". Do we need this section?
> 
> 7. If the above changes are made, the Introduction will be very short. I would move the "Vocabulary Overview" into the introduction (it makes sense to do an overview as early as possible in the document). Here's a possible table of contents, in which I also move "Namespaces" down, closer to the reference "Properties and Relationships" section:
> 
> 1. Abstract
> 2. Vocabulary Overview
> 2.1. Terminology
> 2.2. Rationale
> 2.3. Example
> 3. ADMS Domain Model
> 3.1. Primary Concepts
> 3.2. Secondary Concepts
> 4. Conformance
> 5. Namespaces
> 6. Properties and Relationships
> 7. Acknowledgements
> 
> James
>

Received on Sunday, 7 April 2013 21:18:50 UTC