For the record (1)... I think the use of 'coterie' is somewhat unfair
(at least in the sense of a 'clique'), since I don't see anyone trying
to be exclusive - quite the opposite in fact... but I take the point
about not many people in DCMI being well placed to answer the question -
which is a serious issue for DCMI I would suggest.
For the record (2)... I no longer consider myself part of any such
'coterie' but I've had a go at answering anyway. See
http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2008/08/the-importance.html
Fundamentally, the importance of non-literals vs. literals lies in our
ability to build a Web of *linked data* (to use the currently accepted
term) based on assigning 'http' URIs to things that are useful to us in
describing the world (concepts, places, people and the like), something
that I think the library community have been very slow to recognise,
despite the fact that they sit on a vast array of data, knowledge and
expertise that would be highly valuable in this space. This is a great
shame IMHO.
Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General DCMI discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: 15 August 2008 17:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: non-literal values; qualified or simple DC
>
> Karen,
>
> I suspect the members of the small coterie that could explain
> this are all on vacation at this time. I am not in that
> group, but I will attempt an explanation anyway ;-)
>
> Reading the dcterm:subject entry, I can see that there is an
> expectation that the term will be part of a context -- the
> context may be an authoritative list that it must come from,
> or it could be a combination of a list and rules, such as one
> gets with LCSH, LCC or Dewey. Any term that gets a value from
> a context like that is considered non-literal in the DCAM
> sense because the context needs to be included in the formal
> description of the term. This is somewhat like the 6XX fields
> in MARC where the indicator (or $2) tells you which
> vocabulary the subject heading belongs to.
>
> That said, this definition seems to exclude the possibility
> of uncontrolled subject terms, which you mention. Leaving
> aside the DCAM (which is often puzzling), it seems to me that
> you need a way to indicate 1) whether or not the values in
> the subject field are controlled and 2) if they are
> controlled, what list they come from. I don't think that
> DCTERMS alone provides this capability, although you could
> possibly create it by using these value "patterns":
>
> 1) a character string alone. This would represent an
> uncontrolled subject term or terms.
> 2) A URI for the subject term. This is only an option if the
> term itself has a URI. I can imagine URIs for things like LCC
> or Dewey looking something like:
> http://www.oclc.org/dewey/ddc22/973.13
> 3) A URI for the subject *system* plus a string for the
> subject heading or term.
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/ "Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors"
>
> I'd love to hear other takes on this because I think it
> probably has been amply discussed in the DC development process.
>
> kc
>
>
> Karen Arcamonte wrote:
> > I'm currently involved in the selection of standard fields for a
> > metadata project and we have some fields that we are calling Dublin
> > Core fields (Subject and Relation fields), but we are
> including free
> > text or uncontrolled terms. I notice that the DC Subject
> and Relation
> > fields are "intended to be used with a non-literal value." I'm not
> > sure what this means. Is there anyone that can explain in simple
> > terms? I've looked at the DCMI Abstract Model and I'm still
> not sure what they mean by "non-literal"
> > value. Also, can you say you are using Qualified Dublin
> Core for some
> > fields and Simple Dublin Core for other fields in an
> application profile?
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask]
> http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
|