I think there are two aspects to this. First, the idea that you can
say a resource does or does not have an attribute and both of those
statements can be made explicitly, but also that you can identify who
and when that statement was made. In the accessibility world, this
last bit has been considered as of interest alongside the first
because of the legal implications, as well as the standard old trust
one. EARL was designed to manage the latter problem, and it is only
RDF, so it could be used, perhaps. For the former problem, there is
the issue of the vocab list being cumbersome.
I'd appreciate some guidance, for sure.
Liddy
On 09/02/2007, at 9:59 PM, 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!
>
> 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
>>
>>
|