JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives















By Topic:










By Author:











Proportional Font





DC-ARCHITECTURE  February 2012



Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


DCAM call - 2012-01-30 11:00 EST - report


Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>


DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>


Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:56:19 -0500





text/plain (275 lines)

2012-01-30 DCAM call - 11:00 EST

Attended:    TomB (chair), DianeH, StuartS, AaronR, MichaelP, RichardU, CoreyH, GordonD,
             KaiE, JonP, AntoineI, MarkM
This report: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision/TeleconReport-20120130

Picking up on dc-architecture discussion

Tom: Two visions of DCAM on table. Are they compatible?
-- Kai: DCAM as SKOS-like thing for metadata - see
-- Jon: DCAM as more tightly coupled to application and Description Set Profiles.
   Expressing constraints.
Over to Kai...

Kai: My starting point: an RDF approach to DCAM -- creating something similar to SKOS.
     Classes, relations, properties, ontologies to explain what metadata is in the context of RDF.
     Explaining *what* Descriptions and Description Sets are.
     Makes clear that we're compatible with RDF, while also making it usable outside of RDF.
     Such a model can be used independently of RDF, just like the SKOS model is in principle 
     usable without RDF.  

Jon (irc): I think that Kai's notion is very useful, but I don't agree that SKOS is an 
     abstract thesaurus model.  
Jon: It's useful to work backwards from RDF, starting from two different ends.
     But it's also useful to work backwards from XML.
     DCAM is a mixture of semantic and constraint specifications, and that needs 
     to be formalized in a way that's broader than the current XML expression.

Corey (irc): +1 to having something that's also compatible with ability to express as a 
     flattened XML schema for validation purposes.

Antoine: Would like to flag that using SKOS as model is good but when people ask 
     about implementations of DC using SKOS, they might be less happy with the fact 
     that there's no official XML schema for SKOS data.

Aaron: Question for Kai.  DCAM as an OWL spec for describing metadata, as parallel 
     to SKOS for describing thesauri and FOAF for people?

Kai: Yes.  Obvious challenge is that this is dependent or interrelated to the next 
     version of RDF.  Named Graphs ~= Description Sets.

Antoine: Maybe the next version of RDF will be stable enough by the time you need it?

Jon: The problem with being RDF-centric is that for much of the [world?] RDF is a fringe 

Corey: This is one of the core roles that Dublin Core and DCAM can play. On
     the Provenance call [1], we discussed the notion of "records" -- in the XML sense -- 
     proliferating, being de-aggregated, then re-aggregated and used in new contexts.
     Break up and use in new context.  Alot of systems will be XML-based and not RDF-aware.
     Express data in XML but still fitting in with the RDF data model -- that is missing 
     piece.  People who work in records.

     Jon, Antoine, Kai, Aaron, Gordon: +1 to Corey.

     [1] http://wiki.bib.uni-mannheim.de/dc-provenance/doku.php?id=minutes_2012_01_15

Richard (irc): Named Graphs = Descriptions? Can Named Graphs nest? i.e. a Named
     Graph is itself a graph. Can another Named Graph point at a set of other
     Named Graphs (the concept of a Description Set)?

Kai: If we would adopt SKOS (probably another question), maybe we would have to provide an 
     XML schema for it?

Diane: Agree. Folks that I know who are transitioning from record-based world
     will definitely need that sort of support, maybe for a long while.

Antoine (irc): @richard: yes, NGs could correspond to Descriptions and DescriptionSets 
     (but there are some details to sort out).

Jon: RDF provides a way of disseminating and aggregating metadata records in a way that's 

Corey: At my library, mix of MARC, MODS, EAD, DC - want to combine meaningful
     bits about one resource into a triple soup that I can dump into Primo.
     Normalized XML Record, etc. Want to draw the meaningful bits, disaggregate,
     reaggregate that presents discovery-level view.

Jon: XML provides a way of creating records that conform to a particular format.
     DCAM provides a way of defining a model that supports both representations of data.
     I think the differences in perspective -- differences between Kai's and my point 
     of view -- are very compatible.

     Corey (irc): compatible++ interoperable ++ Jon:++
     Antoine: +1 to Jon

Gordon:  RDF provides a way of semantic mapping and entailment that can be
     very powerful when taking data from many different sources.
     Jon: +1 to Gordon

Kai: If we start from traditional DCAM and XML and end up with something that
     really fits into RDF, then I'm happy. If we start from XML and it also fits, 
     then I'm happy too.

     Antoine: +1 to Kai: let's have something concrete and figure it out.

Jon:  For me it amounts to effective examples and test cases in at least RDF and XML.

     Kai: +1 for having working examples for both ends.

Antoine (irc): The effort of just trying it might be smaller than discussing it.
     (I mean I have nothing against discussion but it would be good if it happens 
     based on a first attempt.)

     Gordon, Jon: +1 to Antoine

Aaron: Serialization-neutral format. But practical implementations also useful. 
     Looking at RDF as a model, and perhaps not tying DCAM strictly to RDF.
     For me, RDF entailment (Gordon): look at RDF as a powerful model, not tying 
     DCAM necessarily but taking advantage of that framework.

Diane: Nothing like concrete examples to flush out the issues.

Jon: A test-driven approach to specification development.

Michael: Looking at RDF as very basic metadata model (which it is, in a way)
     and not trying to look at whole RDF tool stack (which is what people assume) -
     e.g., not RDF/XML. Would be helpful to do something like a gap analysis:
     what things in the current DCAM would not be expressible in RDF as a basic model.

     Aaron: +1 to Michael re: using RDFS/OWL as QA model

Antoine (irc): @michaelp: Isn't http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Scratchpad 
     a good start for what you suggest?  E.g., highlights some of the specifics of Vocabulary 
     Encoding Scheme. Description Set is not exressible directly.

Richard (irc): @michaelp Would it be helpful to indicate expressivity gaps? I.e., what can be 
     expressed using RDFS, OWL-Lite, OWL-Full, etc?

Tom:: DC-TEXT as an example of how to write out a DCAM description. Comparing some of the DCAM
     vocabulary (VocabularyEncodingScheme, memberOf) with SKOS (ConceptScheme, inScheme).
     Parts of the current DCAM might be better harmonized with SKOS. Is a DCAM VES different
     from a SKOS Concept Scheme?  Comparison of terminology and constructs as a starting point.

     Jon: +1 to Tom

Antoine: I think we started that discussion on gap analysis already, with my trying to understand 
    these weird LiteralValueString constructs (with much help from PeteJ).

    Corey, Diane: +1 for gap analysis

Corey: I'd like to point out that some of what Tom is talking about sits right between Jon's and 
     Kai's proposals. See http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision/TeleconIRC-20111221.
     It maps to our discussion on the December call about two documents: the Technical (hard mapping 
     to XML and DC-TEXT) and the Layman's document (Karen and, I think, Kai).  What a Description 
     Set is, how it relates to RDF, etc.

     Antoine: +1 for a "DCAM Reference" and a "DCAM Primer"
     Aaron: +1 to Antoine on Reference and Primer

Richard: Some of the introductory material - we have stuff on Interoperability
     Levels, but the current draft does not link back to that.
     DCAM -- Levels of interoperability -- XML approach and RDF approach.
     Linking DCAM to RDF offers a higher level of interoperability.

Tom: The Description Set language component never got beyond draft status. 
     DC-DSP was an attempt at this. Jon's point that DCAM really only makes 
     sense as a data model for app profiles. That's where its significance 
     comes from.  Notion of a constraint language. Jon suggested that DCAM 
     should be useable with many constraint languages.

Jon: Certainly, as Kai points out about SKOS, the DCAM without the DCAP is
     also useful.

Antoine: Regarding application profiles and constraints: having constraint 
     patterns is good but you must be ready to live with constraints specified 
     only at a "low level of interoperability" - i.e., only in an XML schema for an AP.
     I think that's the most difficult technical challenge.

Aaron: DCAM and DCAP -- not just constraints on an XML implementation. But 
     constraints on a variety of serializations.

     Richard, Jon, Mark: +1 @aaron

Jon (irc): But its primary function needs to be seen in the context of providing a 
     format-independent model for defining metadata for a DCAP.

     Antoine: +/- to Jon: it's good if it works, but there are some
     constraints in an XML schema for which it may be difficult to create a more
     general language. But again maybe we can just give it a try and see!

     Jon: +1 to Antoine

Jon (irc): Question: Does the DCAP/DCAM work in the complete absence of RDF?
     If it were an XML-only world (as many metadata domains are) is the DCAP/DCAM 
     still useful?

     Richard: @jon perhaps not unless DCMI is prepared to replace the formal
     models inherent in RDF. But might we also ask if DCAP/DCAM works in the
     absence of XML?

     Antoine: @Jon: data model or serialization?
     Jon:     I'm making a distinction between the XML and RDF data models (they're different)
     Antoine: yes
     Jon:     Within a model there will be many serializations.
     Corey:  @jon -- so the real value here is a set of principles for mapping *between* 
             those data models over & over & over again...

Michael: Strongly advise against trying to create a new constraint language
     for RDF. RDF/XML has so many ways of exrpressing the same RDF graph.
     Complicated. We showed one way in Pittsburgh. One elegant way to
     constrain RDF by producing OWL or RDFS graph and interpreting against RDF
     knowledge base with closed world assumptions.  Pellet 3 was released,
     then taken down (the reasoner).  The work is in flux. But this is a very
     elegant way to express constraints without leaving RDFS/OWL.  Would use
     this to create constraints for validation. Very elegant. Would have to
     test extensively to see where gaps are, comparing with DCAP. But

     Antoine: @michaelp: certainly not try to represent constraints on RDF/XML
     syntactic level, I agree! Your Pittsburgh stuff was indeed much more
     promising, though a bit exotic in the RDF community.

Mark (irc): @Richard: @Jon: I believe DCAP/DCAM should work in absence of any
     serialization, at least ideally.

     Richard: @mark: but RDF isn't *just* a serialization
     Mark:    @Richard: agreed

Kai: If I review these minutes, I think we much more agree than disagree. I
     wonder if the question where to start is not merely a detail. We need an
     abstract model, a formal ontology, use- and test-cases in various domains and
     syntaxes, with the requirement to be compatible with RDF and exist. DCAM as
     much as possible. Clashes have to be figured out.

Corey: Are we getting caught up...? Jon's idea of constraint language as
     entirely about validating RDF? Or metadata model for mapping RDF out to
     systems that only support XML.

     Richard: Well that's the point. If the DCAP/DCAM is intended to be as
     universally useful as DC itself, then it needs to be able to be useful in
     the absence of any particular data model.

     Jon: Corey, exactly

Richard: There also seems to be a difference between the objectives of
     XML and RDF. RDF semantics provide us a model of how some assertions
     refer to an entity. While it is possible to do this using XML, the
     ability of XML to do this by itself was not part of it's rationale.
     However, some of the debates here still have me wondering what we are
     introducing. But perhaps taking a crack at some text might help clarify

Jon: Suggest working on testable cases early in process.  Sill help clarify goals.
     Corey: +1 for testable use cases

Aaron: I think kai_ in his last post has outlined a strong model for proceeding.

Next calls

Tom: Propose that we have telecons weekly for awhile.  Hard to sort out
     complex issues on list; helps to talk.  (Attendees generally agree. Corey will
     be unavailable Feb 1-15. Mark does not like this time slot. Antoine likes
     the principle but will have trouble following the rythm.)

Outstanding actions

ACTION (2012-01-04): Tom and Richard to put placeholder for introductory text into wiki document
at http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Draft.

ACTION (2012-01-04): Kai and Tom to work on technical part in wiki, e.g.:

Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools

RSS Feeds and Sharing

Advanced Options


January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000

JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager