On 3/14/12 2:36 PM, Tom Baker wrote:
>
> Is it clearly "best practice" to use one of these variants? Or are there
> circumstances in which one might favor one over the other?
I think it depends entirely on what you *have* rather than what you
*should have*. So perhaps it would be good to state this as: if you have
'x' do 'y'.
I am unclear on the use of skos:prefLabel in instance data. I consider
skos:prefLabel to be appropriate for the definition of vocabularies. I
can imagine a system carrying labels locally for reasons of efficiency,
but I would not want to see instance data over-riding the preferred
label defined in a vocabulary... or is this a feature, not a bug?
>
> Would it be useful to move these examples to a higher level of abstraction --
> i.e., express these examples not only as RDF triples, but in XML Schema or
> Schematron?
I see no reason not to show different serializations of the examples,
but it may to be stretch to intend to show them all in all serializations.
>
> If the potential value of DCAM lies in providing a frame for examples of Best
> Practice, is it more important to get the set of examples right or to get the
> more generalized abstract syntax right?
If DCAM is re-engineered as a set of best practices then I'm not sure
that there *is* an "abstract syntax" per se. The abstract syntax may be
RDF+OWL/RDF+SKOS, etc.
In the case above, there is more than
> one way to do it. Is it perhaps enough to assemble useful examples, starting
> with simple patterns like those above, on up to higher-level patterns like the
> one Dan presents?
I think it's an interesting exercise to postulate a set of simple
examples as well as higher-level patterns, in part to determine if the
higher-level patterns require more than a compound of the simple
patterns. I definitely think that assembling patterns is a useful
exercise. An interesting example of complex patterns could be MADS,
which attempts to re-create in RDF the full MARC authority record.
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/rdf/
This is a real-life example with plenty of complexity.
kc
>
> Discuss...
>
> Tom
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|