Sorry I don't have time to explore what is being proposed, but I suspect
that the graph (aka "record") boundaries could be "defined" by
publishing an OWL ontology that documents the classes, properties, and
cardinality constraints that are expected to be contained within it.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted the difference between DCAP and DCAM, but my
impression is that this OWL solution would serve for DCAP and that DCAM
(as a pseudo domain model?) would factor out.
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of URBAN, RICHARD
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 1:53 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> Some of that will be addressed by the interoperability section I'll
be
> working on (see my earlier e-mail). According to that document,
W3C
> semantic web standards are a level of interoperability that is outside
> DCAM, and that DCAM is solely concerned with syntactic
> interoperability. However, I'd argue that DCAM has been influenced
by
> the syntactic requirements entailed by the formal semantics that W3C
> has recommended. (and at the moment is not agnostic of them). To me
> Kai's work makes those connections explicit in a useful way, even if
> individual application environments are not interested in what those
> semantics have to offer. (I'm still trying to get my head around how
> DCAM would be agnostic of any of this....)
>
> I do think that one of the things that DCAM needs to do is to map our
> intuitive sense of "records" onto those semantics. Unfortunately, I
> think that these kinds of records (an instantiation of a
> DescriptionSet) crosses some boundaries equivalent to the Work->item
> relationships in FRBR that makes it especially confusing topic. (it
> may be more appropriate for the DCAM for Librarians, rather than Kai's
> technical treatment).
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> > Can someone summarize what DCAM provides that is not provided by W3C
> semantic web standards? A statement of that nature would be a good
> addition to the page.
> >
> > Also, I notice that the page does not have any mention of syntax
> encoding scheme -- is this structure no longer included or is it just
> not yet on this page?
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On 3/4/12 8:38 AM, Kai Eckert wrote:
> >> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
|