review of comment LC-2404

Hi all,

per my action item, I reviewed Ivan's comment LC-2404, and checked that 
the resolution is reflected in the document.

To properly respond to Ivan's comment, I think the ontology document 
should not only include the ontology, but also *explain* how this RDF 
ontology maps to the "abstract" ontology.

I wrote a correspondence table with an introductory paragraph, that I 
attach to this mail. This would have to be inserted in the RDF section, 
together with the RDF ontology.

I also think this requires a number of minor changes in the ontology 
document and the RDF ontology, to make the correspondence as clear as 
possible; I list those changes below and propose we review them briefly 
at the next telecon.

About the ma: prefix
++++++++++++++++++++

* the namespace URI should be associated to the RDF vocabulary only:
   the abstract ontology does not technically require a namespace URI,
   and keeping it may induce confusion between the abstract terms and
   their RDF counterpart.

* This implies removing the 'ma:' prefix everywhere it appears in the
   ontology document (I scanned the document and wrote a guideline for
   making this change in a relatively automated way -- attached as
   removing-ma-pefix.txt)

* I would also remove the sentence in the introduction about the
   namespace URI, and replace it with a sentence like: "Each of those
   metadata formats can therefore be considered as an *expression* of
   the ontology, but this specification also provides a specific RDF
   vocabulary in section 7."

* I would move section 5.1.1 (about namespace definition) to the RDF
   section

* I would remove the parenthesis "(prefix ma in this document)" in the
   definition of 'Ontology' as this only applies to the RDF vocabulary


RDF ontology
++++++++++++


* I have a made a few minor changes (attached as ma-ont-rev-23.owl).

* I submitted a number of other changes to Tobias and Jean-Pierre
   (mostly deleting properties and classes which have no counterpart in
   the ontology document).


properties table
++++++++++++++++

* type definition of 'identifier' does not use the same syntax as the
   others; should simply read 'URI'

* rating description: s/voting/rating/

* rating: the API has an attribute 'type' which is missing from the
   core definitions table (should have type "URI|String", IMHO)

* relation.identifier should have type "URI|String" according to
   description


consistency between the two
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* either make 'identifier' accept "URI|string" instead of "URI",
   or remove 'ma:identifier' from RDF
   (if only URIs are allowed, a property is not needed)

* either make 'language' accept a "URI|string", or make
   'ma:hasLanguage' a datatype property in RDF
   (but why exclude URIs here?)

* either make 'targetAudience.classification' accept "URI|String", or
   make 'has:Classification' a datatype property in RDF
   (but why exclude URIs here?)

* the table states that 'location' can be either the place of creation,
   recorded... whithout giving a mean to specify which
   (nor does the API);
   on the other hand, the RDF ontology provides subproperties to do that;
   we can be happy with that, or enrich the 'location' complex type with
   a 'type' attribute, which seems just as fine to me.
   → this implies changing the API document as well

  regards

   pa