[doap-interest] Some new terms for your consideration

[Stuart Yeates]

Edd Dumbill wrote:
> Hello interested DOAPers,
> 
> Here are some terms I'm close to providing. Feedback welcome.
> 
> doap:implements (indicates implementation of a standard, API or other
> interface)
>     domain: doap:Project
>     range: doap:Specification, doap:API
> (Q: do I really need API, or is this just a Specification as well?)

How would doap:Specification and doap:API relate to the current
asfext:Standard?

> doap:service-endpoint (indicates URI for accessing software delivered as
> a service)
>     domain: doap:Project
>     range: Resource

I find it hard to believe that someone hasn't already specified this
somewhere in an RDF vocabulary, in which case we should borrow it
from there, rather than redefine it.

> doap:language (indicates ISO language code for human language supported
> by this software)
>     domain: doap:Project
>     range: Literal

I think "supported" needs better definition, or anything that
supports unicode transit gets to list all modern languages. Maybe:

"Languages into which all user-visible content, graphics, branding,
help and configuration has been translated in the latest release"

I suspect that we need more than a simple language code as well,
since there are three common representations of Chinese. Maybe
simply defer to RFC4646 ?

> doap:vendor (somebody or something that provides this software, free or
> for money)
>     domain: doap:Project
>     range: foaf:Organization
> (Q: should I bother restricting the range?)

"Vendor" implies a financial transaction in which a single party is
selling something, which is not the case with much community-driven
open source.  Maybe "maintainer," "contributor" or "supporter" ?

> doap:platform (supersedes OS as a more general indicator, e.g. Java,
> EMCA CLR)
>     domain: doap:Project, doap:Version
>     range: Literal

This is good.

> doap:audience (indication of who the software is written for)
>     domain: doap:Project
>     range: Literal

This is ambiguous. In the case of web applications, for example, do
you mean the people who are going to be installing / rolling out the
software or do you mean the ultimate end users of the software?

> doap:tag ('folksonomy' literal tag)
>     domain: doap:Project, doap:Version
>     range: Literal

Is there a good reason why we can't reuse the atom / rfc2487
category construct?

http://www.atompub.org/rfc4287.html#element.category

Atom has an RDF representation as well as the more normally used
plain xml version:

http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomRDF

Reusing the Atom construct gets us instant interoperability with
everyone who uses tags on their blog.

> doap:blog (project blog)
>     domain: doap:Project
>     range: Resource
> (Q. should also implement Atom/RSS channel linking. Would like a more
> structured way than simply rdfs:seeAlso)

Could you elaborate what you want to say that rdfs:seeAlso with a
dc:format doesn't say?

cheers
stuart
-- 
OSS Watch: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/