One of the results of Monday's call was agreement that we need a
"gap analysis" and that my comparative tables of terminology and
constructs used in DCAM, DC-TEXT, RDF 1.1, and (proposed) for
DCAM 2.0 would be a good place to start.
I have moved these tables out of the Scratch Pad  and into a
new wiki page, "DCMI Revision Gap Analysis".
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:56:19AM -0500, Tom Baker wrote:
> Michael: Looking at RDF as very basic metadata model (which it is, in a way)
> and not trying to look at whole RDF tool stack (which is what people assume) -
> e.g., not RDF/XML. Would be helpful to do something like a gap analysis:
> what things in the current DCAM would not be expressible in RDF as a basic model.
> Aaron: +1 to Michael re: using RDFS/OWL as QA model
> Antoine (irc): @michaelp: Isn't http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Scratchpad
> a good start for what you suggest? E.g., highlights some of the specifics of Vocabulary
> Encoding Scheme. Description Set is not exressible directly.
> Richard (irc): @michaelp Would it be helpful to indicate expressivity gaps? I.e., what can be
> expressed using RDFS, OWL-Lite, OWL-Full, etc?
> Tom:: DC-TEXT as an example of how to write out a DCAM description. Comparing some of the DCAM
> vocabulary (VocabularyEncodingScheme, memberOf) with SKOS (ConceptScheme, inScheme).
> Parts of the current DCAM might be better harmonized with SKOS. Is a DCAM VES different
> from a SKOS Concept Scheme? Comparison of terminology and constructs as a starting point.
> Jon: +1 to Tom
> Antoine: I think we started that discussion on gap analysis already, with my trying to understand
> these weird LiteralValueString constructs (with much help from PeteJ).
> Corey, Diane: +1 for gap analysis
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>