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

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  March 2012

DC-ARCHITECTURE March 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited

From:

Kai Eckert <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:03:46 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (183 lines)

Hi Antoine,

first a minor point: dcam:Description is already removed as RDF class, 
that was wrong in the first draft. dcam:DescriptionSet as a class would 
be subclass of rdf11:Graph, or however the RDF working group will call a 
graph (hopefully there will be a class to identify graphs...)

Having said that, I think we are really on the same line here. A 
DescriptionSet is a (named) graph and not an artifical additional layer, 
that is introduced. And my main motivation to introduce 
dcam:DescriptionSet as a class is that I can talk about DescriptionSets 
and create statements with a DescriptionSet as a subject, this is a 
requirement for metadata provenance. This is in line with best practices 
in RDF, and  it makes IMHO things clearer for people who are not deeply 
involved with RDF.

Noone will be forced to use DescriptionSets generally, there is no 
notion that a Dublin Core statement has to be part of a DescriptionSet. 
But it can.

Admittedly, this does only make full sense with the upcoming RDF 
version. Without a proper notion of a named graph in RDF, we could still 
introduce these classes, but there would remain a gap that is only 
bridged by best-practice, i.e. that we provide statements under an URL 
and just say that "URL a dcam:DescriptionSet".

Cheers,

Kai

Am 04.03.2012 23:33, schrieb Antoine Isaac:
> Kai, others,
>
> To try to bridge with the other thread for, my point (2) below would not
> imply that there should not be any DCAM notion of Description. Just that
> it may not be needed as an RDF vocabulary element.
> DCAM could just introduce some "human-readable form" of the notion and
> then say how descriptions are done in RDF (akin to a best practice).
> Without using a new RDF class dcam:Description. In fact even if we need
> some reification, I guess we would also re-use what RDF gives
> "natively", be it named graphs or whatever RDF2 offers us. But I trust
> we're on quite a similar line here.
>
> I'm curious to hear whether this matches Jeff's idea of "DCAM (as a
> pseudo domain model?) would factor out". I think indeed that in an RDF
> implementation of DCAM description (and other DCAM notions), DCAM should
> be as transparent as possible. Namely, just provides rules on how to do
> things.
> (and indeed it may be more difficult to have the same situation for DSP,
> because of the open vs closed-world issue. But that's another story ;-) )
>
> Antoine
>
>
>> Hi Kai,
>>
>> OK, I'll try to put something on the page (maybe with Tom's help ;-) )
>>
>> And yes, to me representing "explicitly" DCAM in RDF is a bit akin to
>> RDFS in RDFS, or RDF in RDF (aka RDF reification)...
>>
>> I do agree that DCAM may be based on RDF. But I think one does not
>> really need an RDF vocabulary for DCAM.
>>
>> Consider one wants to represent a DCAM description in RDF, say for a
>> book. One can:
>>
>> (1) use a DCAM vocabulary that has a class dcam:Description, create an
>> instance of that class, and relate this instance to every statements
>> (subject, predicate, object) that this description should "contain"
>> for the book (creator, publisher, etc)
>>
>> (2) just use RDF to assert statements directly for the book, without
>> bothering about representing any "meta" info in the RDF data.
>>
>> As said, I see some value in scenario (1), but I think it does not fit
>> the majority of use cases.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>> 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 [1] (from the minutes, I
>>> did not attend). This really looks like DCAM would be based on RDF,
>>> isn't it?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Kai
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/singapore-framework.png
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Antoine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just updated the wiki page with the results of a brainstroming
>>>>> session in Dagstuhl[1] last week:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Tech
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 [2].
>>>>> This will be discussed on the DCPROV mailinglist and is a joint effort
>>>>> between the DCMI Metadata Provenance TG and the W3C Provenance Working
>>>>> Group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kai
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> http://www.dagstuhl.de/no_cache/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=12091
>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDCMapping
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Kai Eckert
Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim
Stellv. Leiter Abteilung Digitale Bibliotheksdienste
Schloss Schneckenhof West / 68131 Mannheim
Tel. 0621/181-2946 Fax 0621/181-2918

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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