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  October 2002

DC-ARCHITECTURE October 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: MARC relator list

From:

Roland Schwaenzl <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:51:22 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (165 lines)

> From [log in to unmask] Fri Oct  4 13:58 MET 2002
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ori.rl.ac.uk id
>                       g94BwrX13383
> Date:         Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:59:11 +0200
> From: Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: MARC relator list
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE id NAA12526
>
> Rachel,
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:41:58AM +0100, Rachel Heery wrote:
> > I think it would be useful to include in this proposal some reasoning as
> > to why the terms in the MARC relator list  are being considered as element
> > refinements of contributor rather than as a scheme. In fact it might be
> > helpful to rehearse that argument on this list?
>
> Before doing so, I attach the proposed set of decisions that
> has been emerging from the discussion on the Usage Board list.
> Please bear in mind that this is just a draft proposal and
> that any decisions will need to be made at the UB meeting
> in Florence:
>
> Step 1. Declare dc:creator to be a refinement of dc:contributor.
>
> Step 2. Approve MARC Relator terms as refinements of dc:contributor.
>
>    2.1. The Library of Congress would need to assign and
>         maintain a set of URIs for the Relator terms in an
>         LoC namespace.  It would need to document those URIs,
>         together with other relevant information (labels and
>         definitions), on the Web.  The entire set of Relator
>         terms to be approved would ideally be defined within
>         just one namespace -- i.e., identified by one URI.
>
>    2.2. Usage Board approval would relate to an entire set
>         of Relator terms (i.e., one namespace URI). Terms
>         within that set would not be discussed or approved
>         on an individual basis.  The Usage Board would say,
>         in effect: "terms from this list can be used as
>         refinements for dc:contributor".
>
>    2.3. LoC would be the sole agency responsible for the
>         maintenance of the Relator terms.  DCMI Usage Board
>         approval would extend to new terms as they are added
>         by LoC on an ongoing basis.  Ideally, the Library of
>         Congress would maintain these terms in accordance
>         with principles generally compatible with the DCMI
>         Namespace Policy [1] with regard to permanence and
>         semantic stability over time.
>
>    2.4. Since this declaration with regard to a non-DCMI
>         namespace would set a precedent that presumably
>         could apply to other such vocabularies, the Usage
>         Board would need to clarify in general what status to
>         assign to such a decision (Recommended, Conforming, or
>         something else); decide how to declare and document
>         such a decision in its Web pages; and articulate
>         processes by which other such vocabularies might be
>         considered in the future.
>
>    2.5. In cooperation with the maintainers of schemas
>         expressing DCMI terms formally (e.g., in RDF),
>         the Usage Board would need to understand how the
>         Usage Board approval of a non-DCMI vocabulary would
>         be modeled.
>
>    2.6. Possibly, declare the existing MARC Relator term
>         "creator" to be equivalent to dc:creator.
>
> Step 3. Possibly, ask the DC-Architecture working group to develop
>    recommendations for appropriate syntax for expressing these
>    element refinements.
>
> Now to your questions and comments, taken in reverse order:
>
> >Are we in effect now allowing the DCMI terms list to 'grow' with
> >registering of domain specific refinements?
>
> Not if we follow the course of action above because
> no new DCMI terms would be added.  Library of Congress
> would hold and maintain the terms in the context of a
> namespace URI we could cite (for the sake of argument,
> let's say it is http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcrelators/)
> and give each term its own URI on that basis (e.g.,
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcrelators/ill
> for "Illustrator").  The Usage Board would
> simply say, in effect: "The terms defined in
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcrelators/ can be used as
> refinements of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor)".
>
> The only thing the DCMI Usage Board would need to maintain
> and document is the statement itself; Library of Congress
> alone would maintain the vocabulary and its URIs.
>
> >The sheer number and detail of the roles in the MARC relator
> >list indicate to me that they are not at the 'generic' level
> >which is the business of DCMI.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >                                I am aware that the Library
> >world may want to use these terms (and in particular that the
> >Library Application Profile discussions have reached consensus
> >on the need for these terms in that context).... however it
> >might seem that such 'domain specific' usage might be dealt
> >with by registering a scheme??
>
> A long time ago, back in 1998, the Data Model group
> thought these roles could be used as values of a property
> -- named "Role" -- of an intermediate node representing a
> Creatør/Contributor [1].  In which case, the value of that
> property could be contextualized by an Encoding Scheme saying
> that the values come from the MARC Relator list.

As a matter of fact the proposal of the data model group has been
smashed at the Frankfurt meeting and is incompatible with the
the definitions of subProperty and subClass.

The reason for it has been smashed in the retrospect were well
taken. It didn't scale to more elaborate ontologies.
Some marc relators imply dc:contributor - but it might happen, that
in a given case A --loc:ill--> B
                A --dc:creator--> B both hold and in those
cases one has to use BOTH to indicate, what one wants to.
An alternative would be to create monsters like in the HTML-DOT-DOT-DOT
notation, which assumes a unique path of decendence or a technology
(DMAL+OIL ?) to declare certain path expressions as equivalent.
In my view this would create a substantial maintainance problem
when DC as organization wants to triple or dublicate other peoples
vocabularies.
DC can declare relations on a per entry base - it's not possible and
unneccessary to do so on a "for all" basis.

rs

>
> Handling Roles in the 1998 style, however, assumes that we have
> a data model for agents that includes this special property
> called Role.  Whereas discussion since then, notably at the
> Usage Board meeting in Tokyo, has affirmed that role values are
> to be considered element refinements (see [2], paragraph 4).
>
> Handling Roles in the manner currently being proposed (above)
> allows us to re-use existing "schemes" for things such as the
> MARC Relator list without having to specify a more elaborate
> data model.
>
> Tom
>
>
> [1] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-datamodel/files/decisions.html
> [2] http://www.loc.gov/marc/dc/Agent-roles.html
>
> --
> 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
>
>

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