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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  January 2012

DC-ARCHITECTURE January 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Revising (and simplifying) DCAM terminology - a proposal

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:15:44 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (143 lines)

Tom, perhaps I missed it in the emails, but can you explain the
difference between the "...ID" and "...URI" properties? I see them
listed in the wiki but the info there is quite terse.

Thanks,
kc

Quoting Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear all,
>
> Some sources of confusion with the existing DCAM have been terminological in
> nature:
>
> -- overlap of DCAM with RDF terms, some of which are "false friends" [1]
> (e.g., an "RDF statement" is not the same as a "DCAM statement");
>
> -- presence in the UML model of grouping mechanisms using "unusual"
> terminology
> (e.g., "surrogate");
>
> -- confusing distinction between entities representing "things in the data"
> (syntactic "slots" in a data record) and "things in the world" (conceptual
> things to which the information in the syntactic slots referred);
>
> -- local identifiers for subjects and objects (in RDF terms, for blank nodes)
> were out of scope of the DCAM Description Set Model per se, though present
> in DC-TEXT;
>
> -- subtle differences between the entities of DCAM's Description Set Model
> and entities of the DC-TEXT language.
>
> I have mapped the terminologies of the DCAM Description Set Model,
> DC-TEXT, and
> RDF in a table in the wiki [2] and would like to propose a radical
> simplification.
>
> I propose to limit the entities of the DCMI Abstract Model to the following,
> and to use the same names for a DC-TEXT-inspired notation (which could be
> folded into the "technical" DCAM document and used for examples):
>
> Record
> DescriptionSet
> Description
> StatementSet - alternative suggestions welcome - this
> will require discussion!!
> DescribedResourceURI
> DescribedResourceID - new!
> PropertyURI
> ValueURI
> ValueID - new!
> ValueString - re-defined with more restrictive meaning
> ValueLabel
> LanguageTag
> SyntaxEncodingSchemeURI
> SKOSConceptSchemeURI - proposed as equivalent replacement for
> VocabularyEncodingSchemeURI
>
> I propose to _drop_ the following as entities of the DCAM
> Description Set Model and
> DC-TEXT language and to use them simply in illustrative patterns:
>
> Value Surrogate
> Non-Literal Value Surrogate
> Literal Value Surrogate
> Plain Value String
> Typed Value String
>
> The Descriptive Patterns (or Design Patterns) could illustrate selected
> combinations of DCAM "slots":
>
> Minimal DescriptionSet
> One Description with one StatementSet and no DescribedResourceURI
> DescriptionSet with multiple Descriptions
> Connected via DescribedResourceURI and ValueURI
> Connected via DescribedResourceID and ValueID
> Statements of the "Literal Value Pattern"
> PropertyURI + ValueString
> PropertyURI + ValueString + LanguageTag
> PropertyURI + ValueString + SyntaxEncodingSchemeURI
> Statements of the "Non-Literal Value Pattern" (pick three of the
> following):
> PropertyURI + ValueURI
> PropertyURI + ValueURI + SKOSConceptSchemeURI
> PropertyURI + ValueURI + SKOSConceptSchemeURI + ValueLabel
> PropertyURI + ValueURI + SKOSConceptSchemeURI + ValueLabel +
> LanguageTag
> PropertyURI + ValueURI + SKOSConceptSchemeURI + ValueLabel +
> SyntaxEncodingSchemeURI
>
> I also propose to _drop_ all of the "thing-in-the-world" entities in the DCAM
> Description Set Model: Described Resource, Property, Non-literal
> Value, Literal
> Value, Vocabulary Encoding Scheme, and Syntax Encoding Scheme. The idea here
> is to limit the DCAM Description Set Model to "syntactic slots"
> ("things in the
> data") and point off to RDF, with its semantics, for the underlying theory
> about the "things in the world" to which metadata refers.
>
> I also propose to make dcam:memberOf equivalent to skos:inScheme and
> dcam:VocabularyEncodingScheme equivalent to skos:ConceptScheme --
> then use the
> latter. We should consider using rdfs:label instead of rdf:value
> depending on
> what the current RDF Working Group decides re: best practice guidelines [3].
>
> Note that overall, the idea would be to keep the core model bone-simple and
> push some of the things out of the current core model into "descriptive
> patterns" that could be used as the basis of examples. The idea
> would also be
> to align the DCAM Description Set Model perfectly with DC-TEXT, which would
> be used for the descriptive patterns.
>
> Also note that this proposal would mean changing the "interface" of
> the current
> DCAM by pushing the Literal/Non-Literal Value Surrogates out of the
> core model
> and replacing them with less formalized "descriptive patterns". See, for
> contrast, Mikael's 2008 proposal for revising DCAM in a way that
> would maintain
> its existing "syntactic" entities (while dropping the "semantic" entities in
> favor of RDF) [4].
>
> Tom
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend
> [2]
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Scratchpad#Terminology_compared
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/27
> [4] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCAM-2.0
>
> --
> Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
>



--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager