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  February 2005

DC-ARCHITECTURE February 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Mixing and matching - not always! (was Re: XML schema (fwd)

From:

Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:20:11 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

Quoting Rachel Heery <[log in to unmask]>:

> I just mention this as it seems a point of difference in the way these
> 'properties' are use in DC as opposed to MARC. And I would say by re-using
> MARC relator codes DC is 'cherry-picking' from MARC, which you denigrate
> wrt re-use of MODS?

Hehe heh, you read my mind - yes, in my first draft of that message, I was going
to include that case too! ;-)

The only real reason (IMHO) that the MARC relator properties have LoC URIs is
because they are "owned"/managed/administered by LoC, not by DCMI.

Also I think there is a difference between selecting the MARC relators and
selecting two/three of the many components of MODS, because - if they are
considered only as relations between resources and agents (and that is the ony
facet of their use that has been modelled in RDF) - the MARC relators _do_ form
a "self-contained" set in a way that the components of the MODS hierarchy do not
(because of their interdependence with other components).

But yes, you are correct - LoC/DCMI has chosen to model only that one facet of
the way the MARC relator codes are used in MARC.

> Nice analogy, but I don't think anyone is saying we encourage re-use
> 'regardless' of differences in formats, informed people are saying we
> think these particular terms are equivalent in the way they are used, can
> we do something about it??.
>
> And taking your analogy a little further away from the well ordered
> playroom where kids put their Meccano in one box and their Lego in
> another... In digital library world metadata created using different
> standards/models is exchanged between applications, and to do this is
> converted more or less effectively. So just like little kids out there
> bashing their toys together, throwing them into the wrong box and often
> breaking them, conversions can be more or less 'lossy'. Toys are being
> broken now, data is already getting lost on conversion.
>
> The benefit of re-use is that the metadata creator, the owners of the
> metadata formats and the world in general buy into an agreement 'we agree
> these 2 data elements as more or less equivalent, we think you should do
> the same'. This is as opposed to creating more and more conversion
> programmes mapping between different data elements.
>
> I would say piecemeal re-use is a step towards interoperability...

As long as our standards adopt different meta-models, then there is no
alternative to this conversion. There _is_ no option for reuse.

A Lego brick can never be (re)used in a Meccano construction, and vice versa. I
have to design the equivalent of my Lego nose cone using Meccano, and it will
require me to start using Meccano parts and nuts and bolts (which I wouldn't use
in Lego).

Similarly, the component in the hierarchical model can never be (re)used
directly in the triple model. Rather, I have to analyse the information that is
represented by a structure based on model A, and then create new components that
can represent that same information in a structure based on model B - and as
Mikael's examples from the LOM show, with hierarchical models, that analysis has
to consider the entire data structure, not just one part of it.

Just to be clear - I'm not in principle objecting to having a property called

http://www.loc.gov/mods/location

owned and managed by LoC, and referenced by the DC Libraries Application
Profile. I really don't care what URIs things have or who coins them, as long
as they are persistent and I know what they denote so that I know how I should
deploy them.

I'm just highlighting that the fact that that single property has a LoC/MODS
URIref does not signify that it has anything to do with a component used within
MODS XML. It is _not_ a "reuse" of the mods:location XML element defined within
MODS XML; it is a property, a completely new thing, quite separate from the
existing XML element. And the fact that it has that name does not create any
sort of "interoperability" between DC Lib AP and the MODS XML format.

That "interoperability" would come from the development of an RDF
mapping/binding for MODS (which might use MODS properties, MARC properties, DC
properties, LOM properties, FOAF properties, etc etc etc).

So given that no RDF binding for MODS exists, (IMHO) the only reason for
choosing to create a new property called

http://www.loc.gov/mods/location

rather than choosing to create a new property called

http://purl.org/dc/terms/location

is that presumably it would be "owned"/managed by LoC rather than by DCMI - and
I have to admit it seems slightly odd (to me!) that we are considering asking
LoC to do this - to coin a handful of properties, representing only two or
three (fairly arbitrary) facets of the MODS information model.

Pete
-------
Pete Johnston
Research Officer (Interoperability)
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
tel: +44 (0)1225 383619    fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2024
January 2024
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
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