JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-LIBRARIES Archives


DC-LIBRARIES Archives

DC-LIBRARIES Archives


DC-LIBRARIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-LIBRARIES Home

DC-LIBRARIES Home

DC-LIBRARIES  April 2006

DC-LIBRARIES April 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Progressing DC-Lib and MODS

From:

Ann Apps <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DC-Libraries Working Group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:12:20 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (161 lines)

Thanks Ray and Pete for helpful contributions. Why am I starting to regret volunteering to explain this in language everyone can understand...? Seriously I think this explains it very well - or will when consolidated into a document.

But is there an additional issue? XML schema (or DTD) defines the existence and structure of elements according to a known syntax. But it doesn't define semantics for the elements.

The only semantics I can find for the MODS terms are in the User Guide (I did only look very quickly). This is clearly for human reading. The DC-Lib AP itself does define the semantics of the properties as they are used within the AP (currently also for human reading).

The semantics of DC properties are defined in RDF at http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces

Should properties used in a DC Application Profile have defined machine-readable semantics available somewhere as well as URIs (or at least an intention of providing them)?

Ann

-------------------------------------------------
Ann Apps. IT Specialist (Research & Development), MIMAS,
   The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 6040
Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html
--------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DC-Libraries Working Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Pete Johnston
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:41 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DC-LIBRARIES] Progressing DC-Lib and MODS
>
> Quoting "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > We have attempted to address one of the problems that Ann cited by making
> > the 3 elements in the DC-Lib profile global in MODS version 3.2 so that they
> > can be referenced by other XML schemas. However, Pete notes, making these
> > elements global doesn't make them usable in a DC metadata description.
> >
> > We have not assigned URIs to MODS elements yet. We cannot assign URIs in
> the
> > same manner as URIs are assigned for DC because MODS is structured.
> >
> > To elaborate on the confusion that Pete alludes to: An identifier created
> > for an xml element is not necessarily a universal identifier for that
> > element - it identifies the element to the extent that it distinguishes it
> > from another element with the same name but in a different namespace. For
> > DC, an identifier for an element may also be a universal identifier, because
> > dc is flat. Not so for MODS, because it is structured. Namespaces do not
> > know about structure; schemas do.
>
> Yes, thanks. This is a good point that I had glossed over.
>
> > The confusion -- the misconception that an element identifier is a URI --
> > comes when one says that a "qname" identifies an xml element. A qname is
> > for example, "mods:name" - "mods:" in this context is (functionally) a uri
> > (a prefix associated with a uri, the uri of the mods namespace). So, since
> > a qname is therefore (functionally) an element name qualified by a uri,
> > people tend to conclude that a derived URI can be constructed (e.g. the
> > namespace URI concatenated in some fashion with the simple element name) to
> > universally identify the element, and clearly this is a misunderstanding. It
> > works for DC but not for mods.
>
> Yes. I think generally we (DCMI, DCAP developers, DC implementers) need
> to be rather more careful about explaining when we are using "qualified
> names" as abbreviations/shorthands for URIs - which we all do all the
> time, as it's a heck of a lot easier to say/write "dc:date" than
> "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1" - and when we are using XML QNames,
> which as Ray and I have said are shorthands for these two-part names
> ("local" element name qualified by URI (XML Namespace Name)).
>
> Because of course DC makes use of XML too and in some contexts that
> "dc:date" string really is an XML QName!
>
> _Some_ _XML_ _formats_ make a mapping _between _XML QNames and URIs -
> and then usually only in some clearly specified contexts - but it
> remains the case that they are different things.
>
> I realise we risk giving the impression to the casual user that we are
> suffering from excessive pedantry, but once we get into this area of
> working with different metadata standards and different "abstract
> models" or conceptual frameworks, these things become crucial if we are
> able to commuicate effectively across those boundaries and if we are to
> develop effective interoperability between our different standards.
>
> > Consider for example mods elements:
> >
> > <extent> within <physicalDescription>
> > and
> > <extent> within <part>
> >
> > Two completely different elements, same simple name, same namespace. These
> > cannot be distinguished using qnames.(Obviously not, as a qname is a
> > combination namespace name and simple name, and these have the same
> simple
> > name and same namespace. They are distinguished in the MODS schema by
> > structural definition.)
>
> Right, yes.
>
> > So if we want to assign URIs to MODS elements, it cannot be based on
> > namespace. We are considering doing it based on schema, for example:
> > info:element/mods/physicalDescription/extent
> > info:element/mods/part/extent
>
> OK, but I'd expand a little just on that final point.
>
> I agree that URIs could be assigned to the MODS elements in this way
> and two different URIs could be assigned to distinguish the two
> different uses/interpretations of the MODS extent element. I might
> quibble about the choice of the info URI scheme, but I Won't Go There
> ;-)
>
> Using those URIs, we can refer unambiguously to each of those
> elements-as-containers defined by the MODS hierarchical data structure.
>
> If we really wanted, we could even use those URIs as resource URIs and
> value URIs in DC metadata descriptions and make statements about those
> MODS elements-as-containers
> However, it would still be the case that the things identified by
> these URIs are those elements-as-containers. They are deployed in the
> context of the MODS tree data structure; a MODS element-as-container
> (or maybe an instance of one of tose elements as containers - I'd need
> to think harder about the model there!) has attributes and child
> elements and so on. They don't have refinement/subproperty
> relationships with other MODS elements-as-containers; because that
> notion has no meaning in the MODS conceptual framework. They are not
> properties and should not be referred to as properties in DC metadata
> descriptions.
>
> Properties are different things from elements-as-containers. They are
> two different types of thing constructed within two different
> conceptual frameworks,; they have different relationships with other
> things within those frameworks.
>
> It would be a mistake for the DC Libraries WG to take a URI that Ray
> and the MODS team had assigned to identify a MODS element-as-container
> and to use it as a property URI, because we would then be implying that
> the same URI identified two quite different types of component.
>
> As I said at the meeting in Madrid, the DC Libraries AP requires a
> small set of properties to represent the information it currently tries
> to represent "using MODS elements".
>
> To be referenced in a DC metadata description, those properties must be
> identified by URIs. Personally, I'd advocate using the http URI scheme
> because you get lots of simple, practical, immediate benefits from
> using that scheme in the context of the Web - but, hey, all we need are
> URIs and another URI scheme would still do the job.
>
> Whether those URIs (of whatever URI scheme) are owned/assigned by DCMI,
> Library of Congress or some other party is a
> social/political/organisational issue. I'm really much less bothered
> about that choice than about the fact that we are clear about what
> those URIs identify/refer to, and that we take care to avoid confusing
> XML elements and DC properties.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete -------
> Pete Johnston
> Research Officer (Interoperability)
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
> tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
March 2012
February 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
October 2009
September 2009
June 2009
May 2009
March 2009
February 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
July 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
January 2002
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000
June 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager