On fre, 2007-02-09 at 11:59 +0100, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> Pete,
>
> Maybe you can explain this issue a bit further? I was following the
> discussion on DC-Accessibility as well but did not see a deeper issue
> other than a potential need to be able to say that a resource does NOT
> have a certain attribute.
>
> How are the deeper issues (the truth of statements and describing
> changes) related to that?
>
> Is this implying that the Dublin Core Abstract Model would break as a
> result of someone lying (deliberately or by accident) in the metadata? I
> hope not!
No, it would not break....
But, just as with RDF, as soon as one defines a metadata model that
allows for easy merging of information from many sources, the source
itself becomes interesting.
Now, modeling the source is *not* explicitly part of either RDF or the
DCAM, and it's a difficult task.
It's been done in RDF, but mostly in an incorrect way, unfortunately...
For comparison, see the NewsML framework, which adds a lot of
information to each "statement", like "confidence" etc.
Handling metametadata like the above is very much out of scope at the
moment, but is likely to become more important. As soon as we exit the
domain of "objective" knowledge (which is pretty small) we find this
problem.
I'd really love to engage the accessibility and education people in this
debate, as it's something that needs to be handled consistently across a
number of fields....
/Mikael
>
> Makx.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DCMI Architecture Forum
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete Johnston
> > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 11:16 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [DCAM Public Comment] Monotonicity?
> >
> > There's a long and rather complicated thread on the
> > dc-accessibility list at the moment which (essentially, I
> > think) circles around notions of how to "say" that a resource
> > does not have some attribute, and touches on broader notions
> > of describing changes in some attributes of a resource.
> >
> > Charles McCathieNevile makes the point here
> >
> > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-acc
> > essibility
> > &P=2075
> >
> > that while this sort of thing can be represented using RDF
> > and DCAM, it does require some very careful modelling. I
> > think generally this area - that once a statement is made, it
> > is expected to be true - is something that we've tended to
> > skirt over in DC generally, and I wonder whether it merits a
> > paragraph somewhere in the DCAM (though I'm not volunteering
> > to write it!)
> >
> > Pete
> > ---
> > Pete Johnston
> > Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
> > Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/
> > Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323
> >
> >
>
--
<[log in to unmask]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|