Hi Mikael!
> > > 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.
> > ...
> > > In both cases, the referred value *is* New Zealand, but
> > > referenced in different ways.
> >
> > I am wondering if this "implied level of indirection" shouldn't be
> > made explicit and would thus make life and understanding easier.
> > For me, it would be easier to follow the concepts if we had
> > - objects in the real word ("outside" of the description)
> > - references (pointers) to these objects.
>
> In my opinion, the DCAM does define just that:
>
> 1. resource: Anything that might be identified.
> 2. Resource URI: reference to a resource
What I am referring to is:
The abstract model of the resources described by descriptions is as follows:
- Each described resource may be described using one or more property-value
pairs.
- Each property-value pair is made up of one property and one value.
- Each value is a resource - the physical or conceptual entity that is
associated
with a property when a property-value pair is used to describe a resource.
Here the value is not the reference, but the object itself (as "New Zealand"
above).
Now my understanding is that this describes relations in the real world.
So the property-value pairs mentioned here are not statements in the sense
of the abstract model?
(By the way, I don't really understand why this paragraph describes an
abstract model of resources. It seems to describe descriptions.)
> > If you define a resource as a reference to or an identifier of some
> > object ... then the relations described in the DCAM
> > become relations of these identifiers...
> > But this would remove the ambiguity mentioned by Joseph
> > Tennis: If New Zealand is a resource, how can it be the value
> > of a statement.
>
> If you look closely at the DCAM description model, you will
> find that a statement contains:
>
> * zero or one value URI
> * zero or one vocabulary encoding scheme URI
> * zero or more value representations, which may be
> * value strings, or
> * rich representations
This is fine with me (I'll have remarks in another message about vocabulary
encoding schemes and rich representations).
I am not sure that I *really* understand what "instantiates a property-value
pair" means, though. Does this say that this pair represents a relationship
of the referenced objects in the real world?
A property-value pair in the sense mentioned above?
> Nowhere in the definition of a statement will you find the
> value itself.
> In fact, DCAM descriptions *never* contain any resource at
> all, but only references (identifiers) and representation
> (string or other digital ones). So I don't see a problem - I
> believe we *are* being consistent.
I seem to recall some debate whether the value of a dc:creator statement was
the actual person (identified by some string) or a reference to that person.
I seek some clarity along these lines.
Greetings
Thomas
|