Re: Comments on ADMS draft

Hi Nikos,

Please see comments inline below.

On 06/05/2013 13:47, nikolaos.loutas@pwc.be wrote:
> Dear WG Members,
>
> Congrats on the hard work that you did for elaborating this draft of ADMS.
>
>
> Based on the experience that we gained by implementing ADMS in more than
> 20 semantic asset repositories in Europe and beyond, we would like to
> contribute the following comments, which we hope that can improve further
> the quality of the model.
>
> Based on our experience in SEMIC, the distinction between
> SemanticAssetRepository and AssetRepository is in practice quite vague (it
> often does not exist).
> In the majority of cases, asset repositories contain different types of
> assets (e.g. semantic, technical and organisational).
> We would therefore propose renaming 'SemanticAssetRepository' to
> 'AssetRepository'.
> A similar approach could be followed for SemanticAsset, i.e. renaming it
> to 'Asset'.

The reason we would have for not doing this is that it might adversely 
affect existing implementations. As you effectively represent the 
primary existing implementation of ADMS, and it's you who are advocating 
a change, then I have gone ahead and made this change, i.e. dropping the 
word 'Semantic' from Repository, Asset and Asset Distribution.

>
> If adms:supportedschema refers to the data model that the repository uses
> for exporting its description metadata, then shouldn't the range be
> adms:SemanticAsset?

Done (i.e. range changed to adms:Asset)

>
> adms:relatedDocumentation and relatedWebpage can be perceived as
> overlapping. You could consider merging them into one property.

A similar point was made by another commentator. My response then was to 
declare the two as sub properties of foaf:page. Given your comment, I 
have simply removed relatedWebPage and relatedDocumentation and replaced 
them with foaf:page.

>
> Is it possible to make a reference at some point in the note to the
> controlled vocabularies and the reference implementation of ADMS on
> Joinup?

There is a reference to the ISA Programme controlled vocabularies in the 
example (which points people to the original ADMS spec) and I have added 
a link to Joinup in the acknowledgement section. That's as far as we can 
go in pointing to application-specific information. Any further linkage 
with the ISA programme would have the effect of appearing to limit 
ADMS's potential to Europe which of course is antithetical to the World 
Wide Web Consortium.

>
> Some of the examples could be improved. For instance, it is a good
> practice to include a triple for the SemanticAssetRepository in the
> description of the asset and a triple for the SemanticAsset in the
> description of the distribution.

I've ensured that the dcat:dataset and dcat:distribution properties are 
both cited in the example.

I hope this answers your points?

Phil.




>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nikolaos Loutas
> PwC | Principal Advisor
> Direct: +32 2 7104619 | Mobile: +32 491 965851 | Fax: +32 2 7104069
> Email: nikolaos.loutas@pwc.be
> PwC Enterprise Advisory cvba/scrl
> Firm legal information, click here
>
>
> *Professional Mail*
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.
> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
> please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not
> the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
> rely on this e-mail.
>
> PwC may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and
> other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-- 


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

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

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 12:16:59 UTC