Andy,
My main point is that I'm not sure why it is useful to
formalize a notion of "Qualified DC":
-- If we want to restrict them by definition to
"DCMI-maintained terms", then I'm not sure why this
is useful because, as Rachel and perhaps others have
pointed out, it is not clear that people actually
need such a "DCMI-only" construct.
-- If we drop the restriction to "DCMI-only", then I'm
not sure how such a construct would differ from that of a
"Dublin Core Application Profile". The CEN guidelines
already put forward a definition which could perhaps be
elaborated or merged with what (I think) you are trying
to do with DCQ:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 03:49:33PM +0100, Andy Powell wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Thomas Baker wrote:
> > The CEN Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles ([1],
> > to be discussed in a separate posting) say: "By definition,
> > a DCAP is based in part on Dublin Core and follows DCMI
> > Grammatical Principles [2]."
> >
> > The DCAP guidelines address (by analogy) the question of
> > whether a record could contain zero properties and still be
> > said to conform, as follows: "A DCAP consists of... one or
> > more Term Usages." That seems like a sensible criterion.
> > (By another analogy, one would not say that an English
> > speaker sitting quietly and not uttering a single word was
> > "speaking English".)
Further comments below.
> Assume that I've defined 2 new properties:
>
> - my:price (which has no relationship to existing DCMI properties)
> - my:duration (which is a refinement of dcterms:extent)
>
> I create three metadata records containing *only* the following
> statements, as follows:
>
> Record 1
> --------
>
> <my:price>$25</my:price>
>
> Record 2
> --------
>
> <my:price>$25</my:price>
> <my:duration>25 seconds</my:duration>
>
> Record 3
> --------
>
> <my:price>$25</my:price>
> <my:duration>25 seconds</my:duration>
> <dcterms:dateSubmitted>2003-09-16</dcterms:dateSubmitted>
>
> For the sake of argument, assume that all three examples conform to 'DCMI
> grammatical principles'.
>
> In my view, none of these *is* a 'qualified DC' record. Record 3 can be
> said to 'incorporate qualified DC'. Record 2 dumbs-down to a 'qualified
> DC' record, but is not itself a qualified DC record.
>
> Do you agree?
Almost. If you are still using the definition in the
2003-08-11 draft, the record does have at least one property
and would therefore seem to be a qualified DC record...?
More to the point, Record 3 meets the definition of DCAP, but
Records 1 and 2 fall short because they are not "based in part
on Dublin Core". Knowing that Record 3 meets the definition
of DCAP _could_ be useful information in some environments
(situations where knowing a date could be better than knowing
nothing at all).
> I further create three very simple application profiles that define 3
> applications limited to the properties used in the 3 records above.
> (Yes, this is all very hypothetical!).
>
> I'm unclear which of these three you would say conforms to a DCAP. Only
> 3? Both 2 and 3? All of them?
Just Record 3.
Tom
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: [log in to unmask]
|