In his review of the early version of the ADMS.F/OSS: Use Cases Olivier Berger raises the question: Need to distinguish between Software projects (forges) vs software packages (freshmeat/freecode, etc.) ?
http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/mailman/archives/adms_foss-wg/2012-January/000016.html
Component
DocumentationCategory
Use Cases
Login or create an account to comment.
Comments
See ADMS.F/OSS: Virtual Meeting 2012.01.31: There is sufficient distinction between a Software Project and a Software Asset. This distinction must be retained in the conceptual model. Issue 44173 can be closed.
I agree that there is an obvious distinction between a project and the software it creates. However, as I hope we'll discuss this afternoon, there are other factors, notably the very wide usage of DOAP which blurs that distinction somewhat. More later!
Phil
DOAP is indeed popular, but in practice I'm not sure there's a lot of DOAP usage in software catalogues that are really queried by applications, which would consume that kind of meta-data.
I know it used to be used at a time by the Gnome project, and seems to (have) been used by the Apache software foundation for generation of website of projects... but besides this, I'm not sure it's still very much used in a concrete manner.
Maybe there's just the minimum of its mandatory properties, in DOAP that could be reused plainly in both project and software asset, which actually correspond to very generic properties, like DC ones (description, name, etc.). And the natural extensibility of RDF would allow to add more DOAP attributes on the project even though they ought to have been provided on the software, etc.
In the beginning, only mandatory attributes really matter, and all the rest depends on the kind of reasoning / empirical processing clients/consumers may be willing to make when querying catalogues ?