2.1. Document metadata

• Title of the document : slight inconsistency betw. the acronym and the title, which no longer mentions Free and Open Source software : this should be clarified in the introduction.

• links to license and draft spec could be http:// instead of https://

2.2. 1. Introduction

• ADMS.F/OSS is a metadata schema designed…

• The intention is not to create an entirely new

2.3. 2. Conformance statement

• v0.2 -> v0.3

2.4. 2.2 Data consuming conformance

• one of three ways ? : don't understand

• RDF conformance : add link to chap. "6. The rdf schema"

2.5. 3.1 Explore and search for software

• The table (table 1) and discussion above may be moved to a later part of the specs, which "validates" the schema by analysing coverage of the use case needs, but only once the schema has been presented in details.

• table 1 : some lines are greyed : what's the special meaning ?

2.6. 4. Conceptual model

• "1. Date types" -> "1. Data types"

• together with its properties -> their properties

2.7. 4.1 Data types

• in the table : code : "value from a code list" ??? unclear : need explanation and reference to "5. Controlled vocabularies" ? An example of the use of ids, codes and URIs could be interesting, to explain the general principles with these adopted in the specs (best practices, etc.).

• in the table : "Complex type (based on UN/CEFACT Identifier. Type ) consisting of:" -> "Complex type (based on UN/CEFACT Identifier). Type consisting of:

• an optional identifier for the

• identifier needs a few examples to understand that definition, IMHO

2.8. 4.2.1 Concept: Software Project

• time-delimited : ??? why ? don't understand

• id : URI for the project : if not a URL, which reference is supposed to be used ? as it is mandatory, what's exactly that URI ? Implementation dependant ? Example would help.

• port of : what's the exact meaning of "port" in the context of ADMS.F/OSS : vague notion. Really needed ?

• metrics : target is a Metrics Data Set and not an Agent AFAIU

2.9. 4.2.2 Concept: Software Asset

• It refers to RADion Asset, but at the moment, there's no documentation of the RADion specs (but a diagram) which doesn't help verifying conformity. Again, making the prefix explicit in the tables would help figuring out what comes from RADion or what's novel here.

• homepage : wouldn't "release notes" be better suited ? what's the difference between Project/Product:homepage and SWAsset:homepage

• included asset : need to clarify the description : libraries / sub modules ?

• included item : difference betw asset and item is unclear

• metadata language : uh… what's that ?

• spacial coverage : unused ? : let's not keep it ?

2.10. 4.2.3 Concept: Software Distribution

• "a source code distribution and a binary distribution" -> "a source code package and installable package" would better represent the situation of scripting languages which don't require compilation (no "binaries"), but still need some sort of packaging for installation systems used by end users.

2.11. 4.3 Supporting concepts

• "an number" -> "a number"

2.12. 4.3.1 Concept: Agent

• type : reference error problem

• looks like an agent needs a name, etc. … must be present in classes inherited from, so needs some mark of TBD later ?

2.13. 4.3.5 Concept: Licence

• software licenses are different from other metadata / semantic / documents assets… should that be explicited there ?

2.14. 4.4 Trove classification concepts

• IANAL, but I think there's no need to keep the "(© SourceForge 2012 CC by)" in the text, even if it should be explicited in the docs if sections are copyrighted by third parties and thus not necessarily subject to the license of that document. How is this different from other schemas like DOAP and FOAF in this respect ? This should be harmonized IMHO.

• all the code, id, label triples for all the trove attributes look weird : how are code and ID related : shouldn't there be a sort of "factorization" here ?

2.15. 4.5.1 Concept: File Format

• “targ.gz” -> “tar.gz”

2.16. 4.5.4 Concept: Theme

• skos is not refered to in the bibliography

2.17. 5.11 Theme vocabulary

• how's this different from topic : very generic terms like theme, topic and likes should if possible be more specific to be distinguished

2.18. 6. The rdf schema

• introduction of that paragraph should be reworked / removed ?

• needs a "TBD" marker or pointer to the document on joinup (published in between)

2.19. 7.1 ADMS.F/OSS Working group

• Olivier Berger : remove the "TELECOM & Management SudParis campus,

for the " and add " (Institut Mines Telecom)" after TELECOM SudParis, please (the institute got renamed on April 1st 2012 ;).

• Alain Peyrat : FusionForge -> FusionForge contributor

2.20. 8. References

• DBpedia doesn't have proper [DBpedia] callouts as far as I coud see

• DOAP is missing

• DCAT is missing

• SIOC : couldn't spot references to it in the specs

Component

Documentation

Category

improvement