adms:Asset definition

[bertvannuffelen]

from the ADMS vocabulary definition (https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#the-primary-concepts) as definition & repeated in the ADMS release 2.0.1 document as usage note, the formal definition of adms:Asset is

Abstract entity that reflects the intellectual content of an Asset and represents those characteristics that are independent of its physical embodiment. This abstract entity combines the FRBR18 entities work (a distinct intellectual or artistic creation) and expression (the intellectual or artistic realization of a work). The physical embodiment of an Asset is called an Asset Distribution. A particular Asset may have zero or more Distributions.

[bertvannuffelen]

According to the introduction in https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms the definition is:

Semantic Assets (or just 'Assets'), that is, highly reusable metadata (e.g. xml schemata, generic data models) and reference data (e.g. code lists, taxonomies, dictionaries, vocabularies) that are used for eGovernment system development [ TOGD ].

[bertvannuffelen]

According to the mapping to DCAT (https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#Class:Dataset) the formal definition is

A collection of data, published or curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or more representations.

Actually the current ADMS is based upon DCAT 1.0 (https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-vocab-dcat-20140116/#class-dataset)

A collection of data, published or curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or more formats.

[bertvannuffelen]

The discussion in issue #12 showed that the above setting is at least confusing, if not ambiguous.

So we should align on some "reuse principles" for URIs and the human readable definitions. I also created them as separate issues to enable targetted discussion. I propose that this issue is used to explore the definition of adms:Asset. And come to an agreed new definition.

[bertvannuffelen]

principle 1: the formal definition associated with the term is the only one to consider. Context explanation in introduction may clarify the global setting, but is not should not be taken as part of the discussion for reuse. If the context is relevant it should be part of the formal definition.

for discussion use #26

[bertvannuffelen]

principle 2: If a URI from another vocabulary is reused then its definition has priority over the local definition. The reusing vocabulary should make sense when using the URIs formal definition.

for discussion use #27

[bertvannuffelen]

principle 3: if a class is reflecting a particular subset of items from a class in an external vocabulary then it should be considered to explicit subclass it instead of reusing the URI. Otherwise consider reification via introducing a property with a codelist that identifies the case.

note: many high abstract vocabularies already introduce reification properties.

for discussion use #28

[bertvannuffelen]

principle 4: An application profile of X should show its relationship with X explicitly.

Eg. https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#the-adms-domain-model shows the ADMS model, but it lacks any reference to its base, namely DCAT.

for discussion use #29