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  August 2009

DC-ARCHITECTURE August 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DSP statement template "type" constraint question

From:

Stuart Sutton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:15:48 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Thanks, Mikael, as usual, your explanations are quite clear.  This makes sense although my last question regarding how to infer this result from the documentation remains.  



I hope you do not mind if I press the example a bit further.  Setting aside the wisdom of having a property with "both allowed", it does happen.  For example, a project I am working on wants to make it possible to include "subjects" in a form I might call 'keywords' (free text--i.e., no URI) AND/OR terms drawn from specific VES (some VES with Value URI and some others with VES URI and no Value URI).  And, let's assume, that we intend those keywords to be legitimate literals in terms of the Abstract Model as you just described, Mikael.  Now, (unfortunately?) the scenario I just described is not a case of "no further constraining".  When it comes to the VES, there are several constraints. In such a case, how can I represent this in a DSP?  Am I talking about two separate statements representing subject (one literal and another nonliteral with VES constraints)?  With DC creator in your example, Mikael, a similar scenario might be handled by using both the dc:creator (for literal) and dcterms:creator (for nonliteral) if I wanted data that modeled true to the Abstract Model. But I do not seem to have the same luxury with dc:subject/dcterms:subject.  Or do I?  Or  have I again wandered off base?  Or is my scenario absolutely untenable?



Getting this straight makes a big difference for me since, in the end, a technical implementer is going to inherit an XML or RDF/XML representation of this DSP and should be able to determine appropriate behavior in configuring my scenario in a metadata generation tool...or so I would think.



Again, thanks, Mikael for your quick response.



Stuart 





-----Original Message-----

From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mikael Nilsson

Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:48 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: DSP statement template "type" constraint question



Hi Stuart!



There are obviously some unclear parts of the documentation. I believe

the intended meaning is well-defined, even though the text is not

perfect. Let me try to sort it out:



sön 2009-08-30 klockan 17:47 -0700 skrev Stuart Sutton:

> I am trying to wrap my head around the DSP statement template "type"

> constraint.  According to the specification at section 6.3, permitted

> values are "literal" or "nonliteral" with the default being "both

> allowed".[1]  It further states that "[i]f no value is given, no

> further constraining on the value surrogate can be made."  So, here is

> my question...are "no further constraining on the value surrogate" and

> "both allowed" equivalent?



Yes. The language is intended to convey the fact that the default value

"both allowed" cannot actually be explicitly set - it is only achieved

by not setting a value at all for that attribute. Maybe that is not a

very good idea, but that's what the current text is supposed to say.





>   If so, what is the *USEFUL* result of a statement in a DSP that uses

> the type default and, therefore, has no value surrogate constraints? 



The result is that absolutely anything goes. (With the caveat that a

related description of the value in the Statement might be invalid due

to other contraints). Whether that is useful or not... well, that

depends on what you're doing.



>  Is a system consuming the DSP with such a statement type default to

> assume that it is dealing with the equivalent of a non-literal where

> every possible variation is optional--optional Value URI, optional VES

> URI, optional 0-n Value strings, optional language designations, and

> optional SES URI?



No. It might also be a literal value.



>   Is that what "no further constraint" means? Or is such system

> consuming the DSP with a statement default type declaration simply

> intended to stare back at me asking "what do you want"?  (And,

> further, what does "further" mean?)



"further" in the text refers to the fact that you're not allowed to add

any Literal value constraints or Non-literal value constraints to the

Statement Template. You ARE allowed to add property constraints and

occurence constraints on the Statement, though.



> 

> I come to this question because I am working on a DSP that has a

> statement where the desired result is that "both [are] allowed".  Now,

> it seems to me that if I want "both allowed" and I take the

> specification of the Abstract Model literally, all I need to do is set

> the statement type as "nonliteral" and make all the component parts of

> that non-literal "optional".



No. That would not give you the option of using a literal value.



>  The Abstract Model defines a nonliteral as follows: "A nonliteral

> value surrogate is a value surrogate for a non-literal value, and is

> made up of zero or one value URI (a URI that identifies the

> non-literal value associated with the property), zero or one

> vocabulary encoding scheme URI (a URI that identifies the vocabulary

> encoding scheme of which the non-literal value is a member), and zero

> or more value strings. Each value string is a literal which represents

> the non-literal value."[2]  So, it appears that everything in a

> nonliteral is optional (i.e., "zero or more").  As a result, I can

> express the equivalent of a literal value using a nonliteral where I

> optionally do not use either a Value URI or VES URI.  And, of course,

> for a pure literal, I'd need to limit my value to one value string.



It's true that you can express "the equivalent" of a literal value using

a non-literal and a single value string. Though the contained amount of

information is the same, the semantics are very different which is

evident from the RDF representation of the two cases.



This is the non-literal case (using only resources without URIs)



_:book dcterms:creator _:adam

_:adam rdf:value      "Adam Taylor"



while this is the literal case



_:book dcterms:creator "Adam Taylor"



It was an explicit requirement on the DSP spec to be able to distinguish

between these two cases, declaring one valid and the other invalid. The

second form actually IS invalid according to the semantics of

dcterms:creator, which is defined with values in the class of Agents.

The string "Adam Taylor" is not an Agent.



Thus, while from a certain application's point of view the two contain

the same information, from another application's POV they are very

different. For example, an application that wants to add a statement

about the email address of the author can do so only in one of the cases

(the first). 



It boils down to the fact that in DCAM, a "literal value" is NOT the

same thing as a "value string". 



A "literal value" IS the value, while a "value string" only REPRESENTS

the value, and in a vague sense too.



> 

> So, it seems to me that if I truly want "both" enabled, setting the

> statement type to "nonliteral" and making all components of that

> nonliteral functionally "optional" explicitly enables at least all of

> the following value patterns (in other words, "both"):

> 

> PATTERN #1: 

> Value URI (only) (e.g., http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection)

> 

> PATTERN #2:

> Value URI + VES URI (e.g., http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection +

> http://purl.org/dc/terms/DCMIType)

> 

> PATTERN #3: 

> Value URI + Value string (e.g., http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection

> + "Collection")

> 

> PATTERN #4: VES URI + Value string (e.g.,

> http://purl.org/dc/terms/DCMIType + "Collection")

> 

> PATTERN #5: Value string only ("Collection")

> 

> PATTERN #6: Value string + language designation (e.g., "Collection" +

> en (or, if appropriate, an SES))



Yes, this is all true. But you're missing pattern #7: Literal value.



> 

> While there may be other rational (or irrational) patterns possible,

> these seem to me to exhaust the patterns for what the Abstract Model

> permits for "both" literal and nonliteral value surrogates.

> 

> Now, I have been on the planet long enough to know that I am probably

> messed up!  So, please straighten me out.  How would one explicitly

> declare a statement with a type that is "both" without relying on the

> ill-defined default.  And, if relying on the default is the key, then

> how exactly are we to infer as much reliably from the DSP and Abstract

> Model documentation as they stand.



I'm not sure how to answer that last question, but I would be happy to

hear any suggestions for improvement of the DSP text.



And, thanks for the interesting feedback!



/Mikael



> 

> Stuart

> 

> 

> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/

> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/06/04/abstract-model/#sect-2.2

> 

> Associate Professor & Chair, 

>    MLIS Degree Program

> The Information School

> Mary Gates Hall, Suite 370

> Box: 352840

> University of Washington

> Seattle, WA  98195-2840

> Tel. 206-685-6618

> 

-- 

<[log in to unmask]>



Varning! E-post till och från Sverige, eller som passerar servrar i

Sverige, avlyssnas av Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA.

WARNING! E-mail to and from Sweden, or via servers in Sweden, is

monitored by the National Defence Radio Establishment.

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