Advanced search
ABR WG Highlights - March
Supporting material for the working group (WG) meeting: Presentation. This WG meeting gathered 21 participants from 11 Member States (MS) and different EU institutions. Objective of the working group…
NEWSCreated: 31/03/2021
Highlights of Interview - NIIS - X-Road
Introduction ABR project team handled an interesting discussion with authorities from Nordic Institute for Interoperability Solutions (NIIS) based on the questions from the Interview Guide. We are…
NEWSCreated: 10/11/2020
Access to Base Registries webinar April 2022
Save the date! The ABR team is pleased to invite you to the upcoming webinar with a focus on ‘Exchange of good practices in Member States’ that will take place on 28 April 2022 between 14:00 to 15:30…
EVENTCreated: 15/03/2022RDF 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: 27/06/2012Style problem inside 5.6 license vocabulary in PDF version of the specs
In the PDF export of the 0.5 specs, I noticed a style problem on the first paragraph, which generates a new title numbered 5.7. Hope this helps. Component Documentation Category bug
DISCUSSIONCreated: 27/06/2012