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…
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…
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…
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…
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
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)…
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…
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
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…
SoftwareRelease inherits from doap:Version, which has a doap:revision litteral property. IMHO, it is more suitable than schema:version which seems to be a number, which seems to have been chosen in…
