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).
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?
> 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  (from the minutes, I did not attend). This
>> really looks like DCAM would be based on RDF, isn't it?
>> 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?
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I just updated the wiki page with the results of a brainstroming
>>>> session in Dagstuhl last week:
>>>> 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 .
>>>> This will be discussed on the DCPROV mailinglist and is a joint effort
>>>> between the DCMI Metadata Provenance TG and the W3C Provenance Working
>>>>  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