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  May 2012

DC-ARCHITECTURE May 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

DCAM telecon 2012-05-15 - report

From:

Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 24 May 2012 18:00:36 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (215 lines)

DCAM 2012-05-15 telecon - Report

This report: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision/TeleconReport-20120515
Agenda:      http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision/TeleconAgenda-20120515

Present: Tom (chair), Jon, Karen, Richard, Corey, Antoine, Dan, Gordon, Kai
Regrets: Mark, Aaron

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of previous call on 9 April
    
    ACCEPTED http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision/TeleconReport-20120409
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report from London

Tom: IFLA, ISBD, etc - communities that need a common language for expressing
constraints at different (including higher) levels of granularity.

Gordon: Need for higher-level constructs, both for communicating among
communities but also within.  Emerging concept of "families of APs" that can
be attached to each standard, not monolithic.  One of the tasks from the
Bibliographic Metadata Task Group, now on the wiki: To contribute well-formed
use cases to DCAM and RDF WG Named Graph discussions.  Interested members of
the group should join Architecture and Provenance.  May to October for this
task.  Result should be significant for DCAM/DCAP discussion.

ACTION: Gordon to put reference on wiki.

Karen: Caution against putting too much emphasis on ISBD - backward-looking.
Let's focus on RDA and FRBR - fewer gotchas.

Gordon: But ISBD AP is one of the simplest I can think of.  And the only one
where there has been substantial work.  The RDA AP will be almost as
complicated as FRBR.  If we cannot solve the problem of ISBD AP, we might as well
give up now - a good test case.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle syntax

ACTION 2012-03-22: Antoine to look at the RDFWG extended Turtle syntax and post comments 
to the mailing list.

-- DONE https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1204&L=dc-architecture&P=7778

Antoine: I found this Trig/Turtle syntax easy to use, but I had the sense that
it is not fully baked.  We should express requirements if we see discussion
going in the wrong way.  There is discussion about adding syntactic
complexity.  My case was easy, but talking about ways to express this in more
complex way.  If DCAM requires the simplest form of graph - basic reification
- we should be careful that RDF WG does not make too complex.

   Kai: +1 for advocating simplicity from DCMI
   Aaron: @kaiec +1

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples
    https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1203&L=dc-architecture&F=&S=&P=55080
    http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_High_Level_Example_Publication_Statement
    http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_High_Level_Example_Core_Elements
    http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_High_Level_Example_Resource_Descriptions

Richard: Still feel we need some space for "dark patterns" - what do we see in
examples that are things that we wish to steer people away from.

Karen: working with concrete examples is good, but careful: if we take
real-life examples, there is alot of bad data.  We want _good_ examples.  How
to vet?  Or do we want to be able to do "bad" metadata?

     Richard: +1 kcoyle

Jon: I think there's a case to made for taking a working example that may be
ummm, suboptimal and determining how to model that would be more than just a
useful exercise.

     Richard: @jon,  yes showing roadmap between suboptimal to optimal would
     be useful

Karen: Jon, I can see that. It will be important that we understand what the
intention of the metadata is, and whether it achieves that.

Richard: Is that kind of mapping in the scope of what we're doing here?

Jon: It would help surface anti-patterns as well.

Dan: I wear many hats: DC, Schema.org...  Vocabs are meeting grounds btw
publishers and consumers.  Point yesterday in yesterday's Schema.org call: if
we ground things in concrete examples, natural to go beyond pile of text
files.  What was the process by which this description came into Web?
Europeana re: Mona Lisa.  Brings in Karen's concerns: there might be perfect
description, or less good.  After 15 years DC, would like to be able to point
to examples, also where extension vocabularies used.

      Jon: @danbri +1 to being able to point to concrete examples (I think
      that's what you said)

TomB: we want to collect examples and translate them into some abstract
language.

Karen: Shold be fairly easy to pull examples out of library data.  Gordon and
I could do this easily.  But I'd like to think we could do scientific data.
Reach out to other communities.  Not be too focused on just one part (the
library part).

     Gordon: @karen, +1

Jon: We currently have a reasonable definition of a DCAP and its components in
the Singapore framework.  What we seem to be missing is a more completely
abstract definition of the constraint model.

Gordon: I'm thinking about a hybrid DCAP and schema.org use case.

Dan: How do we slip into looking at xsd, instead of at the instance data?
(xsd is meta...)

Jon: How about a survey of constraint languages?  Xsd, owl, schematron,
json-schema, etc.

Dan: A survey of constraint languages is meta^meta^meta :) but interesting.

Antoine: Agree with Karen.  We don't need alot of examples to start with.  I
could provide Europeana.  We have two application profiles, documented in
fairly ad-hoc way, but documents constraints and re-use of several
vocabularies.

Gordon: ISBD (notoriously) doesn't do headings/controlled access points, so
everything goes into notes in the descriptive metadata. It would be neat if
those notes themselves were marked up with schema.org/RDFa ...

Dan: Can't help thinking about http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ ...

   Jon: @danbri: I don't think it's that meta^meta since we're talking about
   not just an abstraction but a generalization.  Sort of like designing an
   abstract class in Java that must be implemented in its entirety but the
   implementation details are almost entirely local to the class that extends
   it.

Dan: We have instance docs. They make claims about some book/person/situation.
We have schema language instances that make claims about classes of document
and their structure, and/or about the terms (classes/properties) used in those
docs. We have constraint languages that express classes of document in terms
of term occurance patterns.  It is a *bit* meta :)

   Jon: @danbri but germaine :)
        @danbri And perhaps well within scope?

   Dan: yeah, I'd just like to ground it in a repository of use cases / examples /
   and human-level narrative.

Karen: We shouldn't start with gigantic XML schemas, but pull out significant
patterns.  Not a good use of our time to dig through big schemas.

   Danbri nods.  

Gordon: I only put up 3 patterns of examples; there are probably many more.
Good to synthesize!  Same patterns repeat over and over.  ISBD (see link) has
a small number, synthesized by Gordon.

Dan: GordonD, do you have a link?

Gordon: When we discussed this a few weeks ago...  If we want to pull out the
generic patterns, I have more.  There's more than the three I isolated for
this discussion.

     Jon: nods

Karen: Synthesize before sending to group.  I'm find with it being text.  For
example, let's take Gordon's aggregated statement page.  Go through and see
what pattern would be needed.  Start with understanding the use case.

   Dan: I'm fine w/ text too.

Tom: Do we need a generic schema language?

Jon: It's important when describing things in text that we try to be clear
about the differences in expression between the relatively unique RDF data
model and say, XML.

Karen to Jon re: unique data model in XML?

Dan: Let's only do abstraction work once we've got a decent collection of
examples' (which maybe we already have).

Jon: The RDF Open World assumption requires a model that's quite different
from the domain-specific model used by for instance XML.  An AP by definition
describes that closed-world model but in two contexts -- semantics for
publishing in an open world and syntax for validating in a closed domain
model.  Karen, does that help explain at least my perspective on APs?

Karen: We need a place to collect these - need to see them all together.

Richard: can we articulate the difference between "patterns" and "examples"
here? (it seems to get used interchangablely)

    Jon: @musebrarian +1 for patterns vs. Examples

ACTION: Tom to create top-level Design page on wiki.

Corey: nextsteps++

Jon: Personally, I would very much like to end up with a formal
machine-actionable abstract model at some point

   Richard: @jon  machine-actionable in what context (goes back to the
   open/closed world models)?

Tom: Next step: Meet in two weeks.

ACTION Tom to make Doodle poll for week after next.



--
TomBaker <[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