[3.2.0] The class Evidence (and Output)

[jimjyang]

The class Evidence is used to represent a concrete piece of Evidence, not the requirement(s)/specification(s)/etc. to the Evidence, right? See e.g. the example "Entitlement to marry" in CCCEV 2.2.0, where the example instance of the class Evidence is the "ID card of John Doe".

The intension with CPSV-AP is to provide a set of classes and properties to be used when describing public services. How could a service provider be able to provide values for the properties in the class Evidence, in the "design time" so to speak, when the properties in the class are meant to carry values representing a concrete piece of evidence provided by the user of a service, in the "run time" so to speak? Similar question goes for the class Output as well.

Therefore, is it necessary for CPSV-AP to specify the classes Evidence and Output with specific properties? [Note that some of the properties refer to other classes in CPSV-AP]

If we are going to keep the properties in those two classes in CPSV-AP, shouldn't we explain (in usage notes) when those two classes are meant to be used?

Furthermore, if we are going to keep the properties in those wo classes, the definition for the following properties should be rewritten:

1. is conformant to: better with something like "Evidence type that the piece of Evidence conforms to"?
2. language: better with something like "The language(s) the piece of Evidence is in"?

and, what is the property related documentation meant for, in a concrete piece of Evidence?

[EmielPwC]

Hello Jim,

Your main concern regarding the design time and run time issue is covered in issue 95. We understand that this is not clear based on the current usage notes and we will propose clarifying usage notes in the upcoming webinar. Do you have any suggestion which might be included?

Regarding language: we agree that your proposed change in definition would allow it's usage at design and run time therefore we will propose it at the upcoming webinar.

Regarding is conformant to: Could you clarify the impact of your proposed change? we currently don't see how it would impact the meaning.

Regarding related documentation the intention is to allow for further clarifying documentation to be attached. An example for a concrete piece of evidence: when providing an evidence on the energy score of a house related documentation can be used to reference a more extensive audit report of the houses energy usage. As this is not clear from the usage note we will update it to clarify this.

[jimjyang]

Reg. the flexibility of CPSV-AP to cover both the description and execution of a public service: Maybe I didn't read thoroughly enough, but I couldn't find any text about this intention in e.g. Introduction.

Reg. the usage note for the class Evidence: What I miss is something like "Evidence is a concrete piece of proof provided by the user of the service".

Reg. dct:conformsTo: I withdraw my comment.