Thanks Mikael:
I guess what is confusing is the level of indirection introduced by
"described resource" and left out in VES.
Thanks!
joe
On 22-Feb-07, at 11:20 AM, Mikael Nilsson wrote:
> On tor, 2007-02-22 at 10:04 -0800, Joseph Tennis wrote:
>> Thanks Andy.
>>
>> And here's where I fail to see how we are to actually put New Zealand
>> in a Controlled Vocabulary without it being a description of New
>> Zealand. We aren't actually putting the place in the CV. That is
>> impossible to do. Rather we are putting a description of the place in
>> our dc:subject. In fact, we're using Getty's description of the
>> place, aren't we?
>
> All metadata implies at least one level of indirection already (except
> for literal strings). So, the indirection you are asking for is
> already
> implicit in the model.
>
>>
>> so:
>>
>> dc:subject is Getty's description of New Zealand
>
> No, dc:subject refers to New Zealand through the description of New
> Zealand offered by Getty
>
>> and
>> dc: subject is ISO3166's description of New Zealand
>
> No, dc;subject refers to New Zealand through the description of New
> Zealand offered by ISO3166
>
>> vs.
>> dc: subject is not the described resource or the description, but the
>> actual socio-political, economic, territorial, geographic, sovereign
>> New Zealand?
>
> In both cases, the referred value *is* New Zealand, but referenced in
> different ways. There is no dichotomy,
>
> We wont gain anything by introducing *another* level of
> indirection, as
> the model already contains that.
>
> It's not very easy to get your head around... but the words "value",
> "value representation" and "value identification" are carefully
> chosen.
>
> /Mikael
>
>>
>> Somehow we have to be explicit about the textuality and hence
>> contextuality of metadata, especially vocabularies. I think Douglas
>> was on to something when he was talking about 'source' in his Feb.
>> 11, 2007 post to DC-ARCHITECTURE.
>>
>> joe
>>
>> On 22-Feb-07, at 8:40 AM, Andy Powell wrote:
>>
>>>> On a related note, I have a question. Why is a VES a set of
>>>> resources? Why is it not a set of descriptions, as defined
>>>> by the DCAM?
>>>
>>> A VES is a set of resources because it is the resources (rather
>>> than the
>>> descriptions of those resources) that we are interested in using as
>>> values in DC statements.
>>>
>>> If I write a book about New Zealand, then the dc:subject of my
>>> book is
>>> 'New Zealand' (the place) - the dc:subject is not 'a description of
>>> New
>>> Zealand'.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> --
>>> Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
>>> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
>>> http://efoundations.typepad.com/
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> +44 (0)1225 474319
>>
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Joseph T. Tennis
>> The University of British Columbia
>> jtennis | at | interchange | ubc | ca
>>
> --
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph T. Tennis
The University of British Columbia
jtennis | at | interchange | ubc | ca
|