Open cnreediii opened 3 months ago
Rob- OWL is an on-gong requirement. A version of the ModSpec as an ontology to characterize relationships between things. SOSA, CRS ontology examples. Frank - Similar point. Provision for modelling for linked data. Simon - XML Schema part of XML
RDF modules required, for compatibility with GeoSPARQL, SSN/SOSA, GeoDCAT The stack is
We have an opportunity --- If the ModSpec is divided into a "Core" (platform independent) and "Parts" (platform specific) sections, then we should also address now you demonstrate that a "Part" is a valid implementation of the "Core". This can be an external standard or policy, but should be referenced by and implemented in the ModSpec.
Regarding the parts, the XML Model, Schematron, and XML Meta-schema requirements are all specific to XML. So they should all be grouped in the same part.
Recommendation: Split the current ModSpec into a Core and then additional Parts. UML and XML would for sure be additional parts. JSON would also then be an additional part.
Approved August 20, 2024
And OWL/RDF?
@cmheazel Yes - Issue 18 also.
During the July 23 concall, we discussed the idea of splitting the ModSpec into a Core document with Parts. This approach is consistent with many other OGC Standards. Looking at the requirements in the ModSpec we have:
Core - Requirements 1 - 27 Part - UML Model requirements 28 - 38 Part - XML Model requirements 39 - 44 Part - Schematron requirements 45 - 50 Part - XML Metaschema requirements 51 - 52
There was general agreement that this approach makes sense.