Advanced search
A new datadriven healthcare
How could we proceed to a new datadriven and integrated healthcare in Europe. Some thoughts: https://www.vanosta.be/heinmot.htm Any comment and feedback is welcome.
DISCUSSIONCreated: 25/09/2018Updated Date: 25/09/2018
RDF 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: 11/06/2013Updated Date: 11/06/2013
Is 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: 03/02/2013Updated Date: 03/02/2013
Incorrect 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: 31/01/2013Updated Date: 31/01/2013
mandatory 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: 29/01/2013Updated Date: 29/01/2013
ADMS.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: 26/10/2012Updated Date: 26/10/2012
portOf 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: 23/08/2012Updated Date: 23/08/2012
Source 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: 28/06/2012Updated Date: 28/06/2012
Tiny mis-spelling in the specs
5.9 title should be fixed : "langauge" -> "language" ;-) Component Documentation Category bug
DISCUSSIONCreated: 27/06/2012Updated Date: 27/06/2012
Style 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: 27/06/2012Updated Date: 27/06/2012
metrics removed from SoftwareRelease ?
In 0.5 version of the specs, I noticed that metrics has disappeared from SoftwareRelease, leaving it only in SoftwareProject. I'm not sure this is on purpose... metrics could be on the whole project or a particular release... so... just in case... Component Documentation Category Conceptual Model
DISCUSSIONCreated: 27/06/2012Updated Date: 27/06/2012
dcterms:identifier range incompatible with adms:Identifier
Similar issue as the one reported on ADMS : https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/adms/issue/dctermsidentifier-range-incompatible-admsidentifier AFAICT, the dcterms:identifier is used in the RDF schema to define Assets' identifier, i.e. in linking an admssw:SoftwareRelease to an adms:Identifier. However…
DISCUSSIONCreated: 22/06/2012Updated Date: 22/06/2012