ummmm...
Misha is talking about people wanting to share information, I think.
If the local solution worked in that context, it'd be fine but if the
point is to be able to share with other communities, surely a local
solution is not going to work so well?? or alternatively, if a local
solution is going to be encouraged, then Misha's idea of saying 'not
formal' could be softened by just removing the word 'formal' ?????
(my $AUD 2 cents worth of comment offered very tentatively...)
Liddy
On 24/06/2005, at 5:54 AM, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> OK, Misha, I'm having a hard time figuring out whether my leg is being
> pulled or my chain is being yanked :-)
>
> But I'm game...
>
> Is the problem here that oldest of network bugaboos... Sometimes a
> name
> (title) is an identifier, and sometimes an identifier is a name
> (title),
> and sometimes both are true?
>
> I've taken 15,000 digital images in the past two years. They come
> out of
> the camera with identifiers... File names with a bit of crude but
> helpful semantics in them (sequence and file format).
>
> 300 of these images I spend enough time with to actually assign
> "titles"... The rest just live with their filenames as titles.
>
> What would the metadata look like? Well, it would be a mixed bag of
> identifiers and 'titles', EACH of which would be useful for
> dragging out
> those images, and each would be handicapped.
>
> I don't think it will surprise anyone that DC specifications don't
> solve
> this problem for me.
>
> I *CAN*, however move towards a more coherent world by establishing a
> local (my own) convention
> On this topic in my own environment... Isn't this a rasonable thing
> for
> the News community? Or are the legacy collisions already hopeless?
>
> stu
> (who is not the same stu as was formally known, and hasn't been for
> days
> now)
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Misha Wolf [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:32 PM
> To: Weibel,Stu
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Never mind the syntax, feel the semantics
>
> Hi Stu,
>
> Here's an extract from a mail I've received on this subject, from a
> leading member of the Working Group that developed the IPTC Core for
> Adobe's XMP.
>
> Key to abbreviations: "IIM" is an old news standard and "Descr CoCo"
> is the Descriptive Common Component we are developing for all our News
> standards.
>
> <quote>
>
> [...] discussing the "IPTC Core" this working group became aware of
> problems with stating "semantic equivalence" of metadata properties.
> An example:
>
> - Adobe adopted from IIM dataset 2:05 "Object name" with an
> explantion of "Used as a shorthand reference for the object."
> for a field called first "Object name" then "Object Title" and
> finally only "Title".
>
> - Adobe adopted for XMP the DC title field - and synchronises data
> of IIM 2:05 and of dc:title with an explantions of "A name given
> to the resource." and a comment "Typically, Title will be a name
> by which the resource is formally known."
>
> - On first sight this sound reasonable. But many photographers and
> agencies understood this field in Photoshop as the right place to
> write down the image file name. (This was discussed extensively by
> the IPTC Core group - but we found a photographer doing this
> didn't break an IPTC nor an DC rule - see the explanations)
>
> - If the IPTC states "dc:title" and the "title" of the Descr CoCo
> are semantically equivalent this could happen: a software would
> read the dc:title/IIM 2:05 metadata out of an image file and
> transfer this to the "descr:title" - then the user will NOT see
> "A label acting as a short introduction to the content."
> (= explanation from the CoCo document) but a file name :-(((
>
> </quote>
>
> I think that the statement:
>
> Typically, Title will be a name by which the resource is formally
> known.
>
> applies only to the library/art/museum community, but not to any of
> the
> many communities where titles are completely transient. I suggest
> that
> we figure out for how many years the comment has said what it now
> says,
> and change it, for the same number of years, to
> say:
>
> Typically, Title will *not* be a name by which the resource is
> formally known.
>
> It is, after all, just a comment, so that should be OK, right :-)
>
> Best wishes,
> Misha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weibel,Stu [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 June 2005 20:13
> To: Misha Wolf; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Never mind the syntax, feel the semantics
>
> This seems easy to me...
>
> Point A:
>
> The DEFINITION is broad and inclusive, and seems to me to clearly
> satisfy both the biblioheads and the webheads.
>
> The COMMENT is just that... A comment. Intended to clarify
> (oops... We
> might not have done the best possible thing in this case, though the
> word 'typically' is a very legitimate trap door).
>
> Definitions are normative, comments are... well... Comments.
>
> Point B:
>
> The tricky balance that Misha articulates below has always been hard,
> and inevitably rough around the margins:
>
> a balancing act between having definitions that are so broad
> that they become meaningless and definitions that are so narrow
> that they fit only one community and are not shareable.
>
> Always we should be apply the test of common sense... In this case,
> its
> asking the question...
>
> What is the most title-like-object in this resource, and if I
> choose it,
> am I likely to blow up any other community's notion of THEIR
> title-like-object?
>
> The answer seems SOOOO obvious to me that I can't understand why
> this is
> even an issue.
>
> Hey, Misha... We've missed you!
> s
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:DC-
> [log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Misha Wolf
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Never mind the syntax, feel the semantics
>
> I'll start by mentioning that I've put on a hard hat and a flame-
> retardant cape, just in case I need them.
>
> It's also worth reiterating Stu's mention of my long involvement with
> DC. See, for example, RFC 2413 (Dublin Core Metadata for Resource
> Discovery), dating from 1998:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2413.txt
>
> As I've mentioned in previous postings, the News Architecture Working
> Party of the International Press Telecommunications Council
> (IPTC) is actively examining the use of DC for those of our metadata
> elements where there is a good semantic fit. Having been involved
> with
> DC all those years ago, I had assumed that this would be a relatively
> pain-free matter. I was wrong. Consider the humble title. RFC 2413
> defines this as:
>
> The name given to the resource, usually by the Creator or
> Publisher.
>
> The current official DC documentation states:
>
> Definition: A name given to the resource.
>
> Comment : Typically, Title will be a name by which the resource
> is formally known.
>
> Ouch! This comment may well work for the Library community. It
> certainly does not work for many other communities, such as Web page
> authors, professional photographers, or news organisations.
>
> If I change the title of one of the hundreds of Web pages I
> maintain, I
> am most certainly not changing "a name by which the resource is
> formally
> known".
>
> The same applies to a professional photographer changing the title of
> one of thousands of photos on her/his computer.
>
> And the same applies to a news story ... the title (ie headline) is
> most
> certainly not any kind of formal name.
>
> So we have a problem. If the Semantic Web is to work, it is not
> enough
> to employ some common syntax or even a common abstract model.
> We need to be able to share meaning. And this is obviously a
> balancing
> act between having definitions that are so broad that they become
> meaningless and definitions that are so narrow that they fit only one
> community and are not shareable. Those of us working on the
> architecture of mainstream news standards, perceive the comment
> associated with dc:title as being on the latter end of the spectrum.
>
> And so, as Chair of the IPTC News Metadata Framework WG, I am
> asking the
> DC community to reconsider the text of the comment accompanying the
> definition of dc:title.
>
> Many thanks,
> Misha Wolf
> Standards Manager, Reuters
>
>
>
>
> ----------- -----------------------------------------------------
> Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
>
> To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit
> http://www.reuters.com/productinfo
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the
> views of Reuters Ltd.
>
>
>
> ----------- -----------------------------------------------------
> Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
>
> To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit
> http://www.reuters.com/productinfo
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the
> views of Reuters Ltd.
>
|
