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  February 2012

DC-ARCHITECTURE February 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCAM: Karen Coyle on application profile design patterns (2008)

From:

Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:39:13 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (66 lines)

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 02:54:34PM -0500, Richard Urban wrote:
> Tom are you suggesting that Karen's "patterns" for DSPs are a *model* that we
> can follow for coming up with DCAM patterns, or that these *are* DCAM
> patterns?  

On the telecons we seem to roughly agree that the design of DCAM should be
motivated by, and illustrated by, actual examples.  Put another way, if DCAM is
a language for talking about things that are either cannot be expressed -- or
cannot be expressed in plain language -- by RDF (the _model_) alone, then we
should be able to say _what_ DCAM would allow us to express.

As Antoine has suggested, it might be easier simply to start with examples (or
patterns) and work back to abstractions rather than the other way around.

Several types of "patterns" have been put forward - see [1], which includes
patterns of various sorts from DC-RDF, DC-DSP, Mikael, Gordon, Alistair, and
Karen.

> Currently Description Set Profiles seem very oriented towards syntaxes that
> should be used in particular contexts or "applications."  But I find that
> many of the things that DSPs want to do is provide some ontological
> distinctions about the kinds of things described and which properties (and
> classes of values/vocabularies) that should be used to describe them.  This
> seems close to the idea of *interpretations* that Alistair alludes to in
> several of his e-mails and is part of the model-theoretic semantics of
> RDF[1].   

The idea behind DC-DSP [2] is to provide a language for specifying the expected
contents of Description Sets -- statements made, with which properties and
cardinality constraints... -- in a generic way can be compared or matched
against instances of Description Sets -- i.e., against actual metadata records,
in whatever DCAM-conformant syntax they may be expressed.  DC-DSP is really
about trying to express, in an abstract form, syntactically validatable
constraints.

Although DCAM is, in theory, grounded in RDF semantics, DSP is all about
syntactic validation, which to my way of thinking is quite orthogonal to
model-theoretic semantics per se.

[...]

> * "mandatory" would require the specification of some class of resources that
>    universally has some property.  To do this would require a more expressive
>    tool, like OWL.

If you are designing an interpretation of the world, perhaps, but what if you
just want to be able to validate instance data in a closed-world sense -- i.e.,
throw up an error message if a description lacks a statement using a property
that is "mandatory"?

> I'll see if I can come up with a quick categorization of the patterns we have
> so far along these lines.  

A categorization is a good next step!  Note that I have folded the examples
from DC-DSP into [1].

[...]

Tom

[1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Design_Patterns
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/

-- 
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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