Hi Jon,
Thanks for the comments. This isn't a response to all your points by any means, but re your second point, Tom attempted to summarise the "substantive changes" in his announcement here
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=171
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Architecture Forum on behalf of Jon Mason
Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 3:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Feedback on proposed DCAM revisions
Pete, Andy, Mikael, et al
thanks for the opportunity to make a few comments on the re-working of the DCAM
<http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/> http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/ ...
1. On first reading it presents very well & looks to be better structured. But it *is* abstract! ...and is challenging to clearly comprehend. I really think some concrete examples throughout would be of general benefit to readers.
2. it's a little tricky knowing what the substantive changes to the DCAM are without having two browsers open & looking through both versions -- but there are clearly substantive changes.
3. it would be helpful to have a definition for "reference model"
4. the document doesn't make explicit what the "reference model" actually is -- if the Abstract Model is the aggregate result of the 3 models provided then what is the reference model? And each of the 3 models are referred to as instances of "abstract models" ??
5. Despite the fact that a metadata instance can also be a resource in itself I keep stumbling on the recursiveness of some of the terminology -- "resources" *described* by "descriptions"; each "described resource" may be described ... etc
6. Each of the 3 models are far more clearly presented than in the previous version -- in particular, the roles of "identification", "representation", & "description". This also raises another issue: many of the more simplistic & commonplace definitions of "metadata" define it as "data that describes other data". Would a more precise "simplistic" definition then be "data that is described, identified, or represented by other data"?
7. The definition for "description" in terms of a "statement" has bothered me for some time (in both versions); particularly when metadata instances can manifest other than descriptions (in the plain english sense) -- eg., as data that identifies or is associated with a resource. If a resource collection is managed only by inventory codes, for example, these codes could be said to be metadata instances but they certainly don't "describe" a resource.
8. Clarification needed: is the definition "Each value is a resource - the physical or conceptual entity that is associated with a property when a property-value pair is used to describe a resource" an "if & only if" relationship? If so, I'm confused with the multiple levels of recursiveness -- some plain english examples for each might assist. If a value is a resource and a resource is a statement are inventory codes, barcode strings, or Dewey Codes all statements?
9. In "The abstract model of DC metadata descriptions" why is the definition for "description set" provided before "description"? It seems more natural the other way around
10. Section 3: "each DC metadata description describes one, and only one, described resource." Again, I find this usage of describing "described resources" awkward. By inference, what happens with "undescribed resources"?"
11. Section 4. Not sure about the conceptualisation here: "A value associated with the Dublin Core Subject property is a concept (a conceptual entity) or a physical object or person (a physical entity)." I cannot see how it can be either. Surely, a value is a term or a descriptor of a physical entity. For a clear exposition of the relationship between objects, concepts, designations (terms, symbols, etc), & definitions see ISO 704 -- <http://jtc1sc36.org/jtc1sc36/doc/36N1007.pdf> http://jtc1sc36.org/jtc1sc36/doc/36N1007.pdf
Jon
|