search

opengeospatial / ogc-modspec

OGC ModSpec in Metanorma
1 stars 2 forks source link

Split ModSpec document into "Core" and Parts #36

Open cnreediii opened 3 months ago

cnreediii commented 3 months ago

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.

cnreediii commented 2 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

dr-shorthair commented 2 months ago

RDF modules required, for compatibility with GeoSPARQL, SSN/SOSA, GeoDCAT The stack is

cmheazel commented 2 months ago

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.

cmheazel commented 2 months ago

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.

cnreediii commented 2 months ago

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

cmheazel commented 1 month ago

And OWL/RDF?

cnreediii commented 1 month ago

@cmheazel Yes - Issue 18 also.