Thomas, I looked at your links when you announced that, but I actually
wasn't able to make much sense out of that project, possibly because
it's the back end of something where I'm mainly interested in the front
end. I would be very interested in applications that would help people
create DSPs, or something like them, and to use that to test whether the
DSP rules are adequate.
There's something else, however. Both the DCAM and the DSP have been
around for quite a while, and yet they appear not to have "caught on." I
know that there was supposed to be an effort to take another look at
DCAM to see if it is still useful now that RDF exists and is well
developed, and the DSP could also be compared to OWL, presumably. It
seems to me that the non-viability of DCAM and DSP have been determined
by their poor reception. (I honestly don't think that "literal value
surrogate" is going to catch on, ever.)
At the same time, I think we should look at the DSP structure and
constraints because they were well-thought out. Basing them on RDF & OWL
concepts rather than the DCAM may be the way to do this. I don't know
yet, but that's what makes sense to me.
kc
On 8/31/14, 11:24 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
> do you think it's worth to mention the approach of Kai and me to validate all current DSP constraints as it is now [1,2]?
>
> The DSP validator [2] gives you for each current DSP constraint [3] an example
> - how this constraint looks like in the RDF representation,
> - how this particular constraint can be fulfilled,
> - and how and why this specific constraint is violated.
>
> I totally agree that the current DSP specification (the conceptional model) needs to be extended and revised.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
> [1] dcmi/DSP-SPIN-Mapping
> [2] purl.org/net/rdfval-demo
> [3] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/
>
> --
> Thomas Bosch, M.Sc. (TUM)
> PhD Student
> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
> Social Science Metadata Standards
> Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
> Postal Address: P.O.Box 12 21 55, D-68072 Mannheim
> Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
> Fax: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-100
> Web: http://www.gesis.org
> Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
> GitHub: https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im Auftrag von "Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 30. August 2014 22:06
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: [RDF AP] A different view of the DSP
>
> I've begun a page relating to the DSP, with the idea that we could look
> at whether the DSP helps us with RDF validation. [1]
>
> I'm only beginning to understand the difficulties I have had with the
> DCAM and DSP, but in part they relate to the fact that both the DCAM and
> the DSP diagrams use a single type of diagram notation for what I see as
> different types of things. Thus the diagrams do not differentiate
> between structures (e.g. description set), property types (literal or
> non-literal), and constraints. They also do not indicate where choices
> are to be made (e.g. that a given property is of a single type).
>
> I've redrawn the DSP to take these issues into account. I have also used
> property type terminology from OWL rather than the DCAM terms, mainly
> because the OWL types make more sense to me. You can see this on the page.
>
> You can ALSO see that my design skills are limited. If anyone wishes to
> provide a more readable version, or any alternate versions, we can put
> them on the wiki.
>
> kc
>
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/DSPanalysis
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|