Hello,
I may be off the mark, but I get the feeling that the DCMI Registry
phase 1 is closer to Administrative database (or VMT) than the ideal
registry folks have been describing in this thread.
Contains stuff for the process of managing the evolution of instance
data
[[
(eg, proposal-submitter's email address), plus any additional
information that might be recorded about moving that proposal
through an approval process (eg, date submitted), as well the
historical archive of proposals that were rejected (which we
specificially would not want to put on the Web).
]]
Doesn't produce RDF instance data.
[[
> There will be other registries (not to mention other applications)
which
> access the machine-readable representations of the DCMI vocabularies
> (the "DCMI RDF schemas").
]]
Doesn't aggregate/cooperate/extend(/extended by??) other vocabulary
registries (I know we are just tripping over other registry systems left
and right).
[[
> But perhaps more importantly for my argument
> here, I believe that sooner rather than later it will be desirable for
the
> DCMI registry to be able to access/read/index/display the
machine-readable
> representations of vocabularies owned by other organisations.
]]
So why not bolt on (I would think at the servlet layer) the needed
management UI pieces (state management, internal (hidden) application
data,...) and call it that.
Second is there any plans to make the toolset available to the public
(is this still EOR project based (i.e., can be obtain via) or is that
bad word in the group)?
Cheers Tod...
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 03:29, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 07:49:42PM +0100, Pete Johnston wrote:
> > >However, please bear in mind that the registry is not about RDF. It's
> > about
> > >the DC vocabulary. We may wish to include information in the registry that
> > >is not RDF related, is not in the schemas, and does not belong in the
> > >schemas.
> >
> > I guess my problem is I'm struggling to understand what sort of information
> > you have in mind here. I see Roland has just asked the same question! ;-)
> >
> > Essentially I had always been working on the basis that all the information
> > input to and indexed by the registry application could and should be made
> > available in an RDF-based form accessible on the Web.
>
> Pete, others,
>
> I fundamentally agree with the intention of putting things on
> the Web in an RDF-based form but there are some grey areas
> with regard to administrative metadata. I believe Harry is
> thinking of information such as the attributes in section 2.4
> of http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/vocabulary-guidelines/
> (eg, proposal-submitter's email address), plus any additional
> information that might be recorded about moving that proposal
> through an approval process (eg, date submitted), as well the
> historical archive of proposals that were rejected (which we
> specificially would not want to put on the Web).
>
> For me, the confusion lies in seeing the Registry (which I
> think of as an information resource for the public) also as a
> back-end administrative database for vocabulary management.
> Perhaps we need to make a more careful distinction between
> public data (which should be in RDF for reusability and
> exchange) and internal administrative data (some of which
> could be in an Oracle table).
>
> Where I don't follow Harry (if I have understood him
> correctly), is in thinking that the administrative database
> should export the public bits of its data into the public
> registry through a purpose-built API instead of simply
> exporting RDF. I am assuming here, as Pete does in an earlier
> posting, that the registry would have to be able to import RDF
> anyway, so it's not clear to me what an extra API would add.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
> Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-171-408-5784
> Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
> 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-1408
|
