So, (looking at http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Tech) you currently have 3 reasons for why people should invest their time in understanding and using the DCAM:
--- cut ---
1) Provide a way to publish metadata on the Semantic Web.
2) Provide an abstract model for metadata applications.
3) Help to bridge the (terminological) gap between the Semantic Web and the metadata community (Dublin Core Community)
--- cut ---
1) doesn't seem overly compelling to me since I assume that most people will (rightly) consider that RDF allows them to do that (without need for the DCAM).
2) may be of value in limited cases (though I question that this is what the DCAM effort is trying to do - assuming that "metadata applications" is intended to be interpreted in its broadest sense).
3) is part of the original rationale for the DCAM (and thus is of questionable widespread value, as I outlined in my previous message) though I would tend to change the last part to "... between the Semantic Web and the Dublin Core community (and hence other metadata communities)".
If 1) is important, then you need to spell out (for me at least) what DCAM brings that RDF does not already have.
If 2) is intended as written, then I question the scope of this activity, since "metadata applications" is such a broad space, and DCMI's ability to deliver it.
3) is OK (though, again... as written, the scope is far too broad to be realistic) but on its own is not enough to justify this effort.
Apologies for seeming negative... my concern is that the DCAM served a purpose at a particular point in time (i.e. the point where DCMI was allowing multiple encoding syntaxes to flourish without a good understanding of what they each represented) and was primarily intended to help clarify DCMI's own thinking. One can argue about how well the DCAM served that purpose but the real point now is that we are no longer at that point in time. If DCMI wants to influence the wider sphere thru this work, then you (collectively) must articulate why anyone should sit up and take any notice. I would strongly suggest doing so before investing much intellectual effort in doing the actual work on a revised DCAM.
Just my 2p... you are, of course, free to ignore me ;-)
Andy
--
Andy Powell
Research Programme Director
Eduserv
t: 01225 474319
m: 07989 476710
twitter: @andypowe11
blog: efoundations.typepad.com
www.eduserv.org.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kai Eckert
Sent: 05 January 2012 12:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 2011-01-04 DCAM editors' call - report
Andy,
Am 05.01.2012 10:58, schrieb Andy Powell:
> If we compare the DCAM with, say, SKOS and ask the same kind of
> question the answer is more obvious I think - people need to
> understand both RDF and SKOS because SKOS gives them something useful
> in the area of 'vocabulary' handling that RDF on its own doesn't give
> them.
>
> The answer for the DCAM is much less clear except in terms of the
> original rationale for having the DCAM at all, i.e.
>
You are right. And your analogy to SKOS is perfect, because that was exactly how I started the RDF-based DCAM wiki page yesterday [1].
Provide DCAM as a model for metadata just like SKOS is for vocabulary handling.
[1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Tech
Cheers,
Kai
--
Kai Eckert
Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim
Stellv. Leiter Abteilung Digitale Bibliotheksdienste Schloss Schneckhof West / 68131 Mannheim Tel. 0621/181-2946 Fax 0621/181-2918
|
