 |
 |
Alistair, they say that the proof is in the pudding -- so I thank you for providing the pudding for this project! A few comments... On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Alistair Miles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > There are plenty of conceptual issues that these scenarios raise, but > for now here are a few technical issues that I found: > > 1. potential case issue in URIs -- most RDA URIs are like > > http://RDVocab.info/Elements/placeOfPublication > > but a few are like > > http://rdvocab.info/Elements/frequency > http://rdvocab.info/Elements/titleProper I'll see if I can fix those. > 2. work title -- the RDA elements schema still has both workTitle and > titleOfTheWork, it looks like one of these should be removed. ditto. will look up official term in RDA glossary and will deprecate one of them. > > 3. rda:placeOfPublication is required in scenario 4 but is marked as > deprecated in the RDA elements schema. The difficulty is that it is in there twice - once deprecated and once not. They have the same URI. So there's something wrong with the way to registry is handling these, hopefully something that can be fixed. It seems that no two entries should have the same URI. > > 4. scenario 5 looks like it requires a rda:statementOfResponsibility > property, but I couldn't find one in the RDA elements schema. It should be there. I will add it in. I believe this is a result of my hatred for that particular field -- my subconscious made me skip it when inputting. > > 5. scenario 6 requires rdarole:defendant and rdarole:reporter, neither > of which are defined in the RDA roles schema. > Actually, I think it's good to leave these as "un-registered" for now, because there is going to have to be a whole discussion of the list of roles -- there isn't a definitive one at the moment, AFAIK. Again, thanks. kc > If these are fixed then these scenarios will be in agreement with the > schemas. > > My raw notes from this work are at: > > http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/AlistairMiles/AnalysisNotes20081129 > > == Scenarios 1, 2, 3 == > > I've also updated the analysis for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 using the > current state of the RDA elements and roles schemas, see: > > http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/1 > http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/2 > http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/3 > > There are now no discrepancies between these three scenarios and the > RDA schemas: all required properties are present in the > schemas. I.e. We can say that the RDA schemas are *sufficient* to > support scenarios 1, 2 and 3. This is a nice first step I think. > > For all scenarios I've also added an RDF/XML representation of the > metadata, for those who like squinting at angle brackets :) > > Cheers, > > Alistair > > -- > Alistair Miles > Senior Computing Officer > Image Bioinformatics Research Group > Department of Zoology > The Tinbergen Building > University of Oxford > South Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3PS > United Kingdom > Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman > Email: [log in to unmask] > Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993 > -- -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------