Hi all,
== Scenarios 4, 5, 6 ==
I've just completed a first RDF expression of cataloguer scenarios 4,
5 and 6, and run my analysis scripts over them, see:
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/4
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/5
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/6
There are plenty of conceptual issues that these scenarios raise, but
for now here are a few technical issues that I found:
1. potential case issue in URIs -- most RDA URIs are like
http://RDVocab.info/Elements/placeOfPublication
but a few are like
http://rdvocab.info/Elements/frequency
http://rdvocab.info/Elements/titleProper
This trips up my comparison script which does a case-sensitive
comparison on URIs, hence rda:titleProper appears as a missing
property in scenario 6 analysis. I'd need to look up the rules for URI
comparison to know if this is actually an issue, but it might be safer
in the short term to ensure all RDA URIs use http://RDVocab.info/Elements/...
2. work title -- the RDA elements schema still has both workTitle and
titleOfTheWork, it looks like one of these should be removed.
3. rda:placeOfPublication is required in scenario 4 but is marked as
deprecated in the RDA elements schema.
4. scenario 5 looks like it requires a rda:statementOfResponsibility
property, but I couldn't find one in the RDA elements schema.
5. scenario 6 requires rdarole:defendant and rdarole:reporter, neither
of which are defined in the RDA roles schema.
If these are fixed then these scenarios will be in agreement with the
schemas.
My raw notes from this work are at:
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/AlistairMiles/AnalysisNotes20081129
== Scenarios 1, 2, 3 ==
I've also updated the analysis for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 using the
current state of the RDA elements and roles schemas, see:
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/1
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/2
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/3
There are now no discrepancies between these three scenarios and the
RDA schemas: all required properties are present in the
schemas. I.e. We can say that the RDA schemas are *sufficient* to
support scenarios 1, 2 and 3. This is a nice first step I think.
For all scenarios I've also added an RDF/XML representation of the
metadata, for those who like squinting at angle brackets :)
Cheers,
Alistair
--
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
|