15926.org

Express Entity Data Types are held in the ISO 15926-2 data model. However because RDF/OWL can only work with classes a copy of the data model forms the top of the taxonomy in the Core RDL.

Therefore a class like Activity and an Entity Data Type Activity are held behind two namespaces and related as equivalentClass.

Is that required? Or should we take the Entity Data Types out of the query-able set?

If I say "yes" is that to your first question or to your second question?
Hans

There is only one question.
In the example of Activity, do we need dm:Activity as well as rdl:Activity, yes or no.

Part 8 spells out that we need an ontology for the data model as well as one for the RDL.
I support that, because Part 2 has its own life cycle.

We need only dm: entities, as a restricted and clearly identifiable set of 201 entities in a separate namespace. This 201 classes and all possible templates constitute the domain of rdf:type property.

No need to copy them in RDL.

Onno,

Please clarify poll options. It seems that No means for you "out with dm:" part, and I've exactly opposite opinion.

Onno,

One topic really important for me is not on poll.

I'd like to suggest the use of dm: namespace of JORD RDL (not dm: of Part 8!) the best practice, due to the volume of data we have there.

Victor,

I don't understand what you mean by a dm: namespace for JORD. The dm: namespace has been used until now for ISO 15926-2 schema entities. So I don't know what it is in the context of JORD.

About the poll question, yes I agree this poll needs to be redefined. I will do that.

Changed the poll question and options. Voted have to re-vote.

Original poll wrote:Do we need to split up Entity Data Types in dm and rdl?

• Yes.
• No.
• Neither (explained in a reply)
• No vote.

New poll wrote:Which namespace(s) should exist for Entity Data Types?

• dm: only one namespace for entities, a separate dm:
• dm: + rdl: classes for entities exist both in dm: and rdl: namespaces
• rdl: entities are the classes in the top of the rdl taxonomy, there is no dm:
• Another solution (explained in a reply)
• No vote.

Follow Part 8 (see attached idagram)
Hans