Re: "Underneath it all you still have to have something that expresses valid triples, n'est pas?"
Actually, my point here is that there are many data serializations, models and use cases for creating, validating, and distributing metadata and many of them don't include a notion of triples, (e.g. nosql) although many of them do include a notion of domain-specific validity and some form of distribution. RDF is extremely useful for distributing metadata in an Open World context, but it's hardly the only data model and hardly the only method of distributing useful metadata.
We need to provide, or at least try to provide, a specification that makes it possible for an organization to describe how they expect the 'things' they know about to be described: which properties are valid or not, what constitutes valid data, and what does each property mean. In the old days, this model used to be called a 'data dictionary' and it's an incredibly useful concept in a world of distributed heterogeneous data. Providing a way for someone to create a single 'data dictionary' that can be used (preferably by a machine) to create validations for domain-specific data and that can be used by anyone (preferably a machine) in the organization, or alternatively in the world, to understand the meaning of that data across departmental, organizational, or national boundaries would be incredibly and fundamentally useful.
If we say that RDF is the ONLY useful way to do this, then we might as well go back to "DCAM is just RDF".
Jon
I check email just a couple of times daily; to reach me sooner, click here: http://awayfind.com/jonphipps
What *does* seem to be core in this blog post is the use of http URIs for values. I'd add to that: properties defined with http URIs, so you know what you are describing. Although you can serialize all of this in JSON if you wish, it means that you have started with LD concepts, not the usual JSON application. Underneath it all you still have to have something that expresses valid triples, n'est pas?
kcKaren Coyle
On 2/15/12 5:49 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
I've been doing some wandering around in JSON land for the last few days
and, as part of a continuing observation that RDF is an implementation
detail rather than a core requirement, I'd like to point to this post from
James Snell
http://chmod777self.blogspot.com/2012/02/mostly-linked-data.html
And the JSON Scema spec: http://json-schema.org/
Jon,
who may someday get his act together and pay attention to these meetings
more than a couple of hours before the meeting.
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Thomas Baker<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:25:17PM -0500, Tom Baker wrote:constructs
-- that DCAM should be developed using a test-driven approach, with
effective examples and test cases that can be expressed in various
concrete syntaxes.
Jon suggested that we take Gordon's requirements for metadata record
[1] as a starting point. As I understand them, these are:or
-- the ability to encode multicomponent things (which in the cataloging
world happen to be called "statements", as in "publication statement"
and "classification statement") either:
-- as unstructured strings, or
-- as strings structured according to a named Syntax Encoding Scheme,
-- as Named Graphs with individual component triples"statements"
-- the ability to express the repeatability of components in such
namespaces.
-- the ability to designate properties as "mandatory", or "mandatory if
applicable", and the like
-- the ability to constrain the cardinality of "subsets of properties"
within a particular context, such as the FRBR model
-- the ability to express mappings between properties in different
government,
It has also been suggested that we find examples of real metadata instance
records from different communities and contexts -- e.g., libraries,
industry, and biomed -- for both testing and illustrating DCAM constracts.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1202&L=dc-architecture&P=6405
Tom
[1]
--
Tom Baker<[log in to unmask]>
--
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet