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  December 2011

DC-ARCHITECTURE December 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCAM examples, patterns, and constraints

From:

Antoine Isaac <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:12:22 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (60 lines)

On 12/22/11 8:34 PM, Jon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     In the DCAM telecon report [1]:
>      > Corey: DCAM can have examples in RDF. It should serve as a bridge between RDF
>      > and XML models.
>     ...
>      > Jon: DCAM explicitly describes a domain model. So it works well for
>      > defining requirements for producing valid data which can then be published
>      > with appropriate semantics. The technical approach to validating and
>      > publishing needs to be documented with examples, and the examples might
>      > explicitly suggest an approach using schema-based validation and OWL-based
>      > semantics.
>     ...
>      > Stuart: Not only substance of revision, but form of presentation. DCAM got
>      > itself into trouble - hard to understand - because it distilled everything
>      > down, addressed itself to technical people. Those of us who observed the
>      > development of DCAM saw there were lots of examples. These examples were
>      > distilled out of the end result. Misses the mark for people who are not
>      > "initiated" in that kind of specification. Would really hope that we end up
>      > with a revision of this approach.
>
>     One clear result of yesterday's call is that the revised DCAM needs to have
>     concrete examples. I'm thinking that it might not take many examples simply to
>     illustrate the constructs of DCAM itself -- e.g., a statement pattern for using
>     a term from a vocabulary encoding scheme as value, a statement pattern using a
>     literal value, a statement pattern for linking a value to a separate
>     Description of the value, etc. Would we need more than five or six?
>
>     However, as Jon suggests (above), the value of DCAM lies in providing a
>     framework for expressing constraints that can be used for schema-based
>     validation of metadata records. I'm wondering how we can do this without
>     introducing the notion of a constraint language. Even though Mikael's DSP
>     specification of March 2008 did not advance beyond the status of Working Draft
>     [3], we could perhaps use the DSP draft for a few examples, if only in an
>     Appendix. Karen started to do something like in the DCMI RDA Task Group wiki
>     in June 2009 [4] -- an example we might follow.
>
>
> In the spirit of keeping the 'specification' as abstract as possible and to avoid introducing yet another formal language, perhaps we could describe the DCAM constraints as concepts (perhaps with a UML expression?) with specific examples from existing constraint grammars in languages like RelaxNG, XML Schema, Schematron, OWL. I think one of the things that made DCAM difficult to implement as an 'abstract' model was that it specifies a formal language and a single expression of that language in XML Schema. I wasn't there, but it seems to have been a desire to make the DCAM model itself machine processable for validity and consistency checking. While this is worthwhile, it might be less important now.


+1. No need to confuse people with yet-another formalism at this stage. Writing human-readable yet precise expression of the constraints, and give examples (OWL, Pete's schematron examples, etc) should to the trick!

Now, what you may want to do is to maintain a separate listing of useful semi-formalized patterns, which appear in the constraints. This could use UML if the min document still use UML, as it is the current DCAM. And if you want to use RDF as a base, then a mixture between "OWL-like" and "whatever-we-need" could still do the trick, as done for the "axioms" in the SKOS Reference (http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/).

Then at the end of the main editorial effort, we could see whether there's a workable way to publish this as an annex/side document. But again, don't make it stand in the path of the main document!

Antoine


>
> It would also be very worthwhile to expand the definition [1] of the connections between the DCAM concepts of 'Descriptions' and (Metadata) Records / (Named) Graphs, 'Statements' and XML Elements / RDF Statements, 'Value Surrogates' and XML Values / RDF property objects, in order to clarify DCAMs role as a bridge between record-bounded and graph-bounded metadata.
>
> Jon
>
> [1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/FAQ/DCMI_Abstract_Model#A_technical_summary_of_DCAM
>

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