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  March 2012

DC-ARCHITECTURE March 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited

From:

"Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 4 Mar 2012 17:13:14 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (324 lines)

Jane,

I agree that "RDF is but one way". I routinely use UML class diagrams when I'm trying to sort out a conceptual model, both on my own and when I'm working with domain experts. Somehow seeing the domain expert's jargon packaged as bits of graphics and populated with use case-based sample instance data makes reality clearer for everyone. When the model stabilizes, converting the graphical UML classes, attributes, and associations into OWL classes, datatype properties, and objecttype properties is a trivial task. Converting the sample instance data into OWL-compliant RDF is just as easy. There are some bells and whistles in both paradigms that don't map easily (e.g. rdfs:subPropertyOf), but if the person doing the conversion knows the limitations, it's not a big problem.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Greenberg, Jane
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 3:40 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited
> 
> My sense all along is that the DCAM doesn't need to be presented in-
> and-only RDF.  Perhaps I'm wrong (?).   It is conceptual.  RDF is but
> one way.
> 
> I like Karen's question, and believe it is important for DCMI to have a
> collectively agreed upon understanding here.   It is fundamental for
> moving forward effectively.  the DCAM has been really important for me
> as a teaching tool, in providing students with guidance to think about
> representation (or, dare I say bibliographic description) outside a
> box, and in a new, emerging way.
> 
> I'd like to contribute more to this current discussion than I can at
> the moment, and greatly appreciate what's being discussed here.
> 
> Thnx all - jane
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 9:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited
> 
> Corey,
> 
> I agree there are other existing solutions, as you suggest. It's not
> clear to me, though, why OWL has a bad reputation for human
> readability. Take Schema.org as an example of how lightweight an
> RDFS/OWL model could possibly be represented and understood.
> 
> It might also be interesting to flip the problem on its head. Rather
> than imaging how OWL could be used to *prescribe* the model used to
> construct a graph, imagine it being used *describe* the graphs that
> someone wants to publish. Combine this with VoID, and the picture of
> any given dataset could be fairly complete. This descriptive approach
> would allow graph models to develop organically just like the terms
> defined in ontologies are.
> 
> Just some ideas.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Corey A Harper
> > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 2:48 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > I definitely think that what you're proposing is one valid technical
> > approach to meeting these needs. I don't think it's the only way. I'm
> > still wrapping my head around this notion of Pellet using OWL for
> > closed-world validation rather than open-world inferencing, but I
> like
> > the idea. I also think that XSD, Relax-NG, Schematron, etc offer
> > suitable technical drafts.
> >
> > My sense of the value of a revised DCA* / DCDSP specification set is
> > to provide more human readable documentation about how to go about
> > doing so, and indeed, why one would even want to.
> >
> > Perhaps that's not as much the group's sense of what's needed,
> though.
> >
> > -Corey
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > > Sorry I don't have time to explore what is being proposed, but I
> > suspect
> > > that the graph (aka "record") boundaries could be "defined" by
> > > publishing an OWL ontology that documents the classes, properties,
> > and
> > > cardinality constraints that are expected to be contained within
> it.
> > > Perhaps I've misinterpreted the difference between DCAP and DCAM,
> > > but
> > my
> > > impression is that this OWL solution would serve for DCAP and that
> > DCAM
> > > (as a pseudo domain model?) would factor out.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:DC-
> > [log in to unmask]]
> > >> On Behalf Of URBAN, RICHARD
> > >> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 1:53 PM
> > >> To: [log in to unmask]
> > >> Subject: Re: DCAM RDF Revision revisited
> > >>
> > >> Hi Karen,
> > >>
> > >> Some of  that will be addressed by the interoperability section
> > >> I'll
> > > be
> > >> working on (see my earlier e-mail).    According to that document,
> > > W3C
> > >> semantic web standards are a level of interoperability that is
> > outside
> > >> DCAM, and that DCAM is solely concerned with syntactic
> > >> interoperability.   However, I'd argue that DCAM has been
> > >> influenced
> > > by
> > >> the syntactic requirements entailed by the formal semantics that
> > >> W3C has recommended.  (and at the moment is not agnostic of them).
> 
> > >> To
> > me
> > >> Kai's work makes those connections explicit in a useful way, even
> > >> if individual application environments are not interested in what
> > >> those semantics have to offer. (I'm still trying to get my head
> > >> around how DCAM would be agnostic of any of this....)
> > >>
> > >> I do think that one of the things that DCAM needs to do is to map
> > our
> > >> intuitive sense of "records" onto those semantics.
> Unfortunately,
> > I
> > >> think that these kinds of records (an instantiation of a
> > >> DescriptionSet) crosses some boundaries equivalent to the
> > >> Work->item relationships in FRBR that makes it especially
> confusing
> > >> topic.  (it may be more appropriate for the DCAM for Librarians,
> > >> rather than
> > Kai's
> > >> technical treatment).
> > >>
> > >> Richard
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Can someone summarize what DCAM provides that is not provided by
> > W3C
> > >> semantic web standards? A statement of that nature would be a good
> > >> addition to the page.
> > >> >
> > >> > Also, I notice that the page does not have any mention of syntax
> > >> encoding scheme -- is this structure no longer included or is it
> > just
> > >> not yet on this page?
> > >> >
> > >> > kc
> > >> >
> > >> > On 3/4/12 8:38 AM, Kai Eckert wrote:
> > >> >> Hi Antoine,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> feel free to add such a section to the wiki page, of course I
> > don't
> > >> want
> > >> >> to have people discouraged or disappointed by reading this page
> > in
> > >> this
> > >> >> early, draftish state.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't think that DCAM in RDF is like RDFS in RDFS. In fact,
> > since
> > >> last
> > >> >> week when we had a look at DC-RDF and DCAM, I am even more
> > > convinced
> > >> >> that DCAM is already based in RDF and we just should go the
> last
> > >> step to
> > >> >> make this clear. Interesting for me was also the link that was
> > >> mentioned
> > >> >> in the last call by Corey [1] (from the minutes, I did not
> > attend).
> > >> This
> > >> >> really looks like DCAM would be based on RDF, isn't it?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Cheers,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Kai
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [1]
> > >> >> http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-
> > >> framework/singapore-framework.png
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Am 04.03.2012 17:26, schrieb Antoine Isaac:
> > >> >>> Hi Kai,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> That is interesting. There's still something that makes me
> > >> wondering
> > >> >>> about these DC-in-RDF efforts though: is the idea really to
> > >> >>> have
> > >> DCAM as
> > >> >>> an RDF vocabulary, on the same level as SKOS and others?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I see the intellectual value of it, but that remind me a bit
> > about
> > >> some
> > >> >>> exercises I've seen of representing, say, RDFS in RDFS
> > >> >>> (pointers
> > >> must be
> > >> >>> findable, but it's no use bothering everyone with that now).
> It
> > >> seems
> > >> >>> quite artificial, and not really needed.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> In fact to be fair I can see some real value, when one wants
> to
> > >> reify DC
> > >> >>> descriptions & statements: it's probably a valid use case,
> > >> especially in
> > >> >>> the provenance context. Just like reification in RDF:
> > >> rdf:Statement,
> > >> >>> rdf:subject, etc...
> > >> >>> But (and maybe it's a better re-phrasing of my criticism
> above)
> > it
> > >> could
> > >> >>> be confusing to focus readers' attention to this now.
> > >> >>> Is it worth putting a bit caveat or "scope of the
> > document"section
> > >> in
> > >> >>> front of that wiki page?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Cheers,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Antoine
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Hi all,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I just updated the wiki page with the results of a
> > brainstroming
> > >> >>>> session in Dagstuhl[1] last week:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Tech
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I merged in the contents of DC-RDF to see if we hit on any
> > >> conflicts.
> > >> >>>> So far it seems to work. The document is a little messy,
> sorry
> > > for
> > >> >>>> that. I hope I find the time to clean it up and of course
> work
> > >> further
> > >> >>>> on it this week.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Main change: The graph container is now the description set,
> > >> >>>> descriptions would not be a class in RDF, they are only
> > >> implicitely
> > >> >>>> defined based on the notion of statements with the same
> > subject.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Interesting question: What happens to the record? Again this
> > > seems
> > >> to
> > >> >>>> be a question that relates to similar questions in the RDF
> > >> community:
> > >> >>>> How to distinguish the content from the serialization. It
> > >> >>>> would
> > > be
> > >> >>>> interesting to keep it somehow, but maybe it will belong
> > >> >>>> rather
> > > to
> > >> >>>> best-practice than to DCAM.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On a side note, I would like to mention that we started in
> > >> Dagstuhl
> > >> >>>> with a mapping between DC-Terms and the upcoming PROV
> ontology
> > >> [2].
> > >> >>>> This will be discussed on the DCPROV mailinglist and is a
> > >> >>>> joint
> > >> effort
> > >> >>>> between the DCMI Metadata Provenance TG and the W3C
> Provenance
> > >> Working
> > >> >>>> Group.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Cheers,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Kai
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> [1]
> > >> >>>>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.dagstuhl.de/no_cache/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=12091
> > >> >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDCMapping
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Karen Coyle
> > >> > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> > >> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > >> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > >> > skype: kcoylenet
> > >> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Corey A Harper
> > Metadata Services Librarian
> > New York University Libraries
> > 20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
> > New York, NY 10003-7112
> > 212.998.2479
> > [log in to unmask]

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