Andy Powell said:
>
> I've put an updated version of the working draft at
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/abstract-model/
>
A couple of comments/queries, somewhat late I'm afraid.
1. related descriptions in section 2
<quote>
DCMI abstract models
The abstract model of DCMI metadata descriptions is as follows:
.....
....
The value representation may take the form of a value string, a rich value
or a related description.
......
......
A related description describes a related resource and is therefore not
part of the description
</quote>
I find it confusing that initially the value representation of the related
description does seem to be part of the description, then it is stated it
is not part of the description. Also Figure 2 includes 'related
description'.... is it that the structured representation is not part of
the description model? Would some explanation be helpful?
2. relationship between record and description
I am a little uncomfortable about use of term 'record' to characterise set
of descriptions, given that description can be record, and set of
descriptions can be record. Isn't that a bit confusing? Admittedly I find
notion of unstructured wrapping together of descriptions somewhat alrming
anyway....
I would want to distinguish 'record' with description and a couple of
administrative elements (date of record creation, record id) from 'record'
that tried to describe artist, painting, gallery etc
Is there any possibility of using 'description-set' or some other
collective term to characterise the latter?
Also having introduced the 'multiple description' record seems to me one
needs an abstract model of that?
3. Application profiles (APs)
It seems to me that section 5 elides from
application profile to record ... missing out something, and I must admit
I'm not sure what.
I am fine about the definition of an AP. It is stated that an AP is a
declaration of properties used etc, which is fine, and fits with view that
the declaration can be thought of as a schema.
However compliance with an AP (a schema) is a different issue, and to go
on to say that any individual records on a per record basis can be
classified as Simple or Qualified according to whether it does or does not
comply to a number of constraints is surely missing something?
over-simplifying?
In that I may have application that uses Qualified DC application profile
declaration, but many instances of records in that application might be
simple DC records?
Maybe all I am saying is that a description needs to signify which AP it
is compliant with, otherwise you cannot judge which of many APs it
complies with?
4. Dumb-down of records
Section 6 talks about dumbing down records... should this be dumbing down
descriptions? in that a record according to model might contain more tha
one description, so dumbing down would not result in Simple DC record
(which by definition contains only one description)?
5. Terminology section 8
a. Definition of value string
Re advice not to contain mark-up -
I thought marked up values were 'rich values'??
b. definition of element... seems to me if one defines 'element
refinements' as property with narrower semantics then one logically should
to define 'elements' as 'top-terms' or such-like. According to the
definitions here all properties are elements, and some are also element
refinements too. There just isn't a name for those elements that are not
element refinements..... oh well!
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|