Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
Should this be identified as an RDF/OWL file?
I did find documentation in the RDF file, thank you! However, it might not be aligned with your specification. For example, hasAuthorPersonLegalName is in the RDF, but not in the specification or XMI.
Looking at the RDF itself, I find the following at the beginning that I have questions about:
<!ENTITY dct "http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
<!ENTITY mdmi-gsm "https://www.omg.org/spec/MDMI/MDMIGenericStatementModel/">
<!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
<!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<!ENTITY rdfs "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<!ENTITY skos "http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#">
<!ENTITY sm "http://www.omg.org/techprocess/ab/SpecificationMetadata/">
<!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">
1. Should these be in normative references in the spec?
2. What is the reason for the choices in these standards (annex?)?
3. Except for the minor reference to OWL, there is no other mention of RDF and these related standards. I’m assuming this is important information that is missing from the specification, given that this is a normative machine-readable file.
Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:21 GMT
Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 2.0
No changes necessary
Use of RDF is informative not normative
Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT
MDMI2_ — Normative RDF
- Key: MDMI2_-33
- OMG Task Force: MDMI 2.0 FTF 2