Advanced search
PM² Project Management Methodology Guide
PM² Guide - Open Edition available through the EU Bookshop.
SOLUTIONCreated: 13/10/2017Open PM² discussion in Paris - Sept 28th
I will have the honour to present PM² and the Open PM² initiative during the "Rencontres du Management de Projet" organised in Paris, Porte de Versailles on Sept 28th. This will be part of the…
NEWSCreated: 13/10/2017Open PM² Methodology Guide climbing up the charts!
Only 2 months old and already the PM² Methodology Guide - Open Edition has made it to the Top 10 most downloaded publications of the EU Bookshop (January 2017)! The PM² Guide is currently at N°4 (and…
NEWSCreated: 13/10/2017Open PM² on the web
Read what people are saying about Open PM² on the Internet. There are some interesting comments. Join the discussions - offer your insights and perspective! Here are a few I've spotted so far: 1) http…
NEWSCreated: 13/10/2017RDF tags in the validator are pointing to an error page
Julien Gaujal (Adullact) reported the following issue with regards to the ADMS.SW validator on 2013-05-22 (translated):
A number of rdf-tags in the validator, mainly the ones with namespace "admssw:" (e.g. admssw:intendedAudience) are referring to an error page.
Original text:
certain des…
DISCUSSIONCreated: 11/06/2013Is blank node authorized or a shortcoming of the validator
I've implemented the ADMS.SW export of the Debian PTS using blank nodes for contributors to the projects and the SPDX information about the packages. However, the validator complains about every blank nodes as they don't have a URI (sic). I'm not sure : are blank nodes allowed per the specs, or is…
DISCUSSIONCreated: 03/02/2013Incorrect iso 8601 date check in admssw validator ?
I've produced a Turtle document using the shell's "date --iso-8601=seconds -u" for the modification date of the document : <http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/php-arc.ttl> a foaf:Document ; foaf:primaryTopic <http://packages.qa.debian.org/php-arc#project> ; dcterms:modified "2013-01-31T12:36:00+0000"^^…
DISCUSSIONCreated: 31/01/2013mandatory license for SoftwarePackage seems problematic
The specs define SoftwarePackage:license as being 1...* While it is great to expect an ADMS.SW service of some kind to serve only files whose license are known, it seems to me a bit too strong a requirement for every ADMS.SW uses. For instance, the FusionForge File Release System has no mention of…
DISCUSSIONCreated: 29/01/2013ADMS.SW software managment platform
Is there a software managment platform using ADMS.SW as an open source project similar to https://github.com/WhiteHouse/petition ? Component User interface Category improvement
DISCUSSIONCreated: 26/10/2012portOf still in the diagrams
The SoftwareProject:portOf property has been removed before 1.0 was released, but the diagrams still mention it. Thanks for updating the diagrams (p. 15 of the 1.00 specs document + release archives) Component Documentation Category bug
DISCUSSIONCreated: 23/08/2012Source Code Repository
Source Code Repository Source Code Repository is added to the model as seperate entity without any attributes. Also in the specification this entity is not further defined besides as a relation of Software Project. Wouldn't it be better to add it as an attribute to Software Project, data type URL…
DISCUSSIONCreated: 28/06/2012Tiny mis-spelling in the specs
5.9 title should be fixed : "langauge" -> "language" ;-) Component Documentation Category bug
DISCUSSIONCreated: 27/06/2012