search

opengeospatial / ogc-modspec

OGC ModSpec in Metanorma
1 stars 2 forks source link

Add clause for 'Specifications using RDFS, SHACL, and OWL to state requirements' #18

Open dr-shorthair opened 4 months ago

dr-shorthair commented 4 months ago

Alongside the clauses for UML, XML Schema etc.

cnreediii commented 4 months ago

@dr-shorthair That should be "standards using . . . :-) That said, while I do not disagree with the suggestion, who will write these clauses? And what are the implications with using Metanorma? Again, another topic for discussion!

cmheazel commented 3 months ago

Consider re-structuring the ModSpec as a multi-part standard. A core (platform independent) Part 1 and technology specific parts 2-n. This would mirror how we write other standards.

cnreediii commented 3 months ago

@cmheazel Totally agree! This issue (18) is actually two sub-issues: ModSpec version 2 should be in Parts as you suggest and some future parts could/should be JSON, OWL, etc.

Perhaps Issue 18 can be resolved in the near term.

rob-metalinkage commented 3 months ago

I don't think we make this mandatory, but specifications that can use a technology appropriate machine readable and testable constraints are going to be far better than those relying on discovering and parsing and interpreting text alone.

cmheazel commented 3 months ago

RDFS, SHACL, and OWL are usually used together. Suggest that we document these requirements as three sections of one part.

cnreediii commented 3 weeks ago

Currently added as note in Future Work clause.