Re: review of comment LC-2404

And I forgot...
to attach the most import part:
the proposed new section 7, with the correspondence table.

   pa

On 11/11/2010 05:26 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> 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
>
>
>