Aligning ADMS with DCAT

[makxdekkers]

Related to #110, I would also like to make a suggestion to drop the domain restrictions from ADMS.
While revision of ADMS is not in the charter of this group, it is quite possible that changes in DCAT will affect ADMS. I would like to suggest that this group consider aligning ADMS with DCAT after we have a new stable version of DCAT.

[nicholascar]

It would be great if such across-the-board alignment could be implemented! I guess this is possible since you are the author Makx?

[makxdekkers]

I would certainly want to try to do that, but depends on whether I'll have time to do it. Anyway, I'll put it on my to-do list, but would want to wait until we have a stable version of DCAT, at least after the next Public Working Draft.

[andrea-perego]

I think we need to raise this issue in one of the plenary calls, as (as you say, @makxdekkers ) the revision of ADMS was not explicitly included in the DXWG charter.

[dr-shorthair]

In #53 I propose to 'promote' adms:Identifier class to DCAT
I think this would also resolve #68

THere may be other ideas from ADMS that could be added to DCAT instead.
Otherwise, revision of ADMS is for another time and another working group.

[makxdekkers]

@dr-shorthair I agree with @andrea-perego that we need to raise this in a plenary call. ADMS is very closely linked to DCAT so it makes sense to keep them aligned.

[andrea-perego]

@makxdekkers , would you like to revive this issue? Or should we close it?

[andrea-perego]

Noting no objections, I'm closing this issue.