This does match my thinking.
Earlier someone (was it Antoine or Karen?) suggested the group should
create use cases to get things rolling. Would it help to revive SWAP as
one such example or is that viewed as a separate concern from DCAM?
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 5:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited
>
> Kai, others,
>
> To try to bridge with the other thread for, my point (2) below would
> not imply that there should not be any DCAM notion of Description.
Just
> that it may not be needed as an RDF vocabulary element.
> DCAM could just introduce some "human-readable form" of the notion and
> then say how descriptions are done in RDF (akin to a best practice).
> Without using a new RDF class dcam:Description. In fact even if we
need
> some reification, I guess we would also re-use what RDF gives
> "natively", be it named graphs or whatever RDF2 offers us. But I trust
> we're on quite a similar line here.
>
> I'm curious to hear whether this matches Jeff's idea of "DCAM (as a
> pseudo domain model?) would factor out". I think indeed that in an RDF
> implementation of DCAM description (and other DCAM notions), DCAM
> should be as transparent as possible. Namely, just provides rules on
> how to do things.
> (and indeed it may be more difficult to have the same situation for
> DSP, because of the open vs closed-world issue. But that's another
> story ;-) )
>
> Antoine
>
>
> > Hi Kai,
> >
> > OK, I'll try to put something on the page (maybe with Tom's help ;-)
> )
> >
> > And yes, to me representing "explicitly" DCAM in RDF is a bit akin
to
> RDFS in RDFS, or RDF in RDF (aka RDF reification)...
> >
> > I do agree that DCAM may be based on RDF. But I think one does not
> really need an RDF vocabulary for DCAM.
> >
> > Consider one wants to represent a DCAM description in RDF, say for a
> book. One can:
> >
> > (1) use a DCAM vocabulary that has a class dcam:Description, create
> an instance of that class, and relate this instance to every
statements
> (subject, predicate, object) that this description should "contain"
for
> the book (creator, publisher, etc)
> >
> > (2) just use RDF to assert statements directly for the book, without
> bothering about representing any "meta" info in the RDF data.
> >
> > As said, I see some value in scenario (1), but I think it does not
> fit the majority of use cases.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> >
> >> Hi Antoine,
> >>
> >> feel free to add such a section to the wiki page, of course I don't
> want to have people discouraged or disappointed by reading this page
in
> this early, draftish state.
> >>
> >> I don't think that DCAM in RDF is like RDFS in RDFS. In fact, since
> last week when we had a look at DC-RDF and DCAM, I am even more
> convinced that DCAM is already based in RDF and we just should go the
> last step to make this clear. Interesting for me was also the link
that
> was mentioned in the last call by Corey [1] (from the minutes, I did
> not attend). This really looks like DCAM would be based on RDF, isn't
> it?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Kai
> >>
> >> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-
> framework/singapore-framework.png
> >>
> >> Am 04.03.2012 17:26, schrieb Antoine Isaac:
> >>> Hi Kai,
> >>>
> >>> That is interesting. There's still something that makes me
> wondering
> >>> about these DC-in-RDF efforts though: is the idea really to have
> DCAM as
> >>> an RDF vocabulary, on the same level as SKOS and others?
> >>>
> >>> I see the intellectual value of it, but that remind me a bit about
> some
> >>> exercises I've seen of representing, say, RDFS in RDFS (pointers
> must be
> >>> findable, but it's no use bothering everyone with that now). It
> seems
> >>> quite artificial, and not really needed.
> >>>
> >>> In fact to be fair I can see some real value, when one wants to
> reify DC
> >>> descriptions & statements: it's probably a valid use case,
> especially in
> >>> the provenance context. Just like reification in RDF:
> rdf:Statement,
> >>> rdf:subject, etc...
> >>> But (and maybe it's a better re-phrasing of my criticism above) it
> could
> >>> be confusing to focus readers' attention to this now.
> >>> Is it worth putting a bit caveat or "scope of the document"section
> in
> >>> front of that wiki page?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Antoine
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I just updated the wiki page with the results of a brainstroming
> >>>> session in Dagstuhl[1] last week:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Tech
> >>>>
> >>>> I merged in the contents of DC-RDF to see if we hit on any
> conflicts.
> >>>> So far it seems to work. The document is a little messy, sorry
for
> >>>> that. I hope I find the time to clean it up and of course work
> further
> >>>> on it this week.
> >>>>
> >>>> Main change: The graph container is now the description set,
> >>>> descriptions would not be a class in RDF, they are only
> implicitely
> >>>> defined based on the notion of statements with the same subject.
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting question: What happens to the record? Again this
seems
> to
> >>>> be a question that relates to similar questions in the RDF
> community:
> >>>> How to distinguish the content from the serialization. It would
be
> >>>> interesting to keep it somehow, but maybe it will belong rather
to
> >>>> best-practice than to DCAM.
> >>>>
> >>>> On a side note, I would like to mention that we started in
> Dagstuhl
> >>>> with a mapping between DC-Terms and the upcoming PROV ontology
> [2].
> >>>> This will be discussed on the DCPROV mailinglist and is a joint
> effort
> >>>> between the DCMI Metadata Provenance TG and the W3C Provenance
> Working
> >>>> Group.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Kai
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> http://www.dagstuhl.de/no_cache/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=12091
> >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDCMapping
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
|