On 2/15/12 12:30 PM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> Are we only talking about Linked Data or are we talking about information
> modeling?

I doubt if it makes sense to take on the entirety of information 
modeling within the DCAM. My impression was that the goal was 
information modeling for the Semantic Web/linked data environment. If 
it's broader than that, then we move up from abstract to something so 
far out it may never be finished. I'd say that we should stick with an 
abstraction that is an abstraction of something useful, not a pure 

DCAP is a documentation model for describing an information
> ecosystem and DCAM is its formal abstract 'domain' model, or should be.

DCAP to me is narrower than that. It describes a coherent set of 
statements for a particular metadata activity. It verges on being a 
record format, although it is a "record format" in a data environment 
that is more flexible than, say, a relational database with a set data 
format. I'd equate the Singapore framework's domain model with an 
"information ecosystem." That to me is the general model before you 
start adding constraints, and perhaps even before you define your set of 

And, as I said before, DCAM to me defines the design patterns that are 
available to you. It is plausible to me that DCAM's patterns have some 
universality, but I wouldn't want to embark on a task of making sure 
that DCAM covers every single metadata possibility, known today or to be 
discovered in the future. That would probably prevent DCAM from have 
such specifics as "property URIs" or "literal values." It's going to be 
hard enough to come up with a model that functions well within the 
semantic web universe.


> Whether or not that model results in Linked Data is beside the point, isn't
> it?

> Jon,
> who just found this and had to paste it here:
> Endless invention, endless experiment,
> Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
> Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
> Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word...
> Where is the Life we have lost in living?
> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
>   -- T. S. Eliot, Choruses from 'The Rock'
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Karen Coyle<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Hmm. In terms of analogies, I would equate DCAP with a data dictionary,
>> not DCAM. To me a data dictionary is the actual metadata elements you will
>> use, not an abstract definition of the possible structures. DCAM seems to
>> be closer to the idea of "design patterns."
>> I don't see how something can be linked data if it doesn't have certain
>> characteristics:
>> - http uris
>> - subjects, predicates, objects (whether serialized as triples or not, and
>> RDF/XML and turtle are examples of not)
>> - subjects and predicates constrained as URIs; objects constrained
>> differently (which DCAM would address)
>> It's possible that the JSON examples in that blog post met these criteria
>> (I didn't perceive URIs for the predicates, but maybe I don't read JSON
>> well).
>> kc
>> On 2/15/12 7:58 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
>>> Re: "Underneath it all you still have to have something that expresses
>>> valid triples, n'est pas?"
>>> Actually, my point here is that there are many data serializations, models
>>> and use cases for creating, validating, and distributing metadata and many
>>> of them don't include a notion of triples, (e.g. nosql) although many of
>>> them do include a notion of domain-specific validity and some form of
>>> distribution. RDF is extremely useful for distributing metadata in an Open
>>> World context, but it's hardly the only data model and hardly the only
>>> method of distributing useful metadata.
>>> We need to provide, or at least try to provide, a specification that makes
>>> it possible for an organization to describe how they expect the 'things'
>>> they know about to be described: which properties are valid or not, what
>>> constitutes valid data, and what does each property mean. In the old days,
>>> this model used to be called a 'data dictionary' and it's an incredibly
>>> useful concept in a world of distributed heterogeneous data. Providing a
>>> way for someone to create a single 'data dictionary' that can be used
>>> (preferably by a machine) to create validations for domain-specific data
>>> and that can be used by anyone (preferably a machine) in the organization,
>>> or alternatively in the world, to understand the meaning of that data
>>> across departmental, organizational, or national boundaries would be
>>> incredibly and fundamentally useful.
>>> If we say that RDF is the ONLY useful way to do this, then we might as
>>> well
>>> go back to "DCAM is just RDF".
>>> Jon
>>> I check email just a couple of times daily; to reach me sooner, click
>>> here:
>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Karen Coyle<[log in to unmask]>   wrote:
>>>   What *does* seem to be core in this blog post is the use of http URIs for
>>>> values. I'd add to that: properties defined with http URIs, so you know
>>>> what you are describing. Although you can serialize all of this in JSON
>>>> if
>>>> you wish, it means that you have started with LD concepts, not the usual
>>>> JSON application. Underneath it all you still have to have something that
>>>> expresses valid triples, n'est pas?
>>>> kc
>>>> On 2/15/12 5:49 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
>>>>   I've been doing some wandering around in JSON land for the last few days
>>>>> and, as part of a continuing observation that RDF is an implementation
>>>>> detail rather than a core requirement, I'd like to point to this post
>>>>> from
>>>>> James Snell
>>>>> http://chmod777self.blogspot.****com/2012/02/mostly-linked-****
>>>>> data.html<http://chmod777self.****
>>>>> linked-data.html<>
>>>>> And the JSON Scema spec:
>>>>> Jon,
>>>>> who may someday get his act together and pay attention to these meetings
>>>>> more than a couple of hours before the meeting.
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Thomas Baker<[log in to unmask]>    wrote:
>>>>>   On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:25:17PM -0500, Tom Baker wrote:
>>>>>>   --  that DCAM should be developed using a test-driven approach, with
>>>>>>>      effective examples and test cases that can be expressed in various
>>>>>>>      concrete syntaxes.
>>>>>> Jon suggested that we take Gordon's requirements for metadata record
>>>>>>   constructs
>>>>>   [1] as a starting point.  As I understand them, these are:
>>>>>> --  the ability to encode multicomponent things (which in the
>>>>>> cataloging
>>>>>>     world happen to be called "statements", as in "publication
>>>>>> statement"
>>>>>>     and "classification statement") either:
>>>>>>     -- as unstructured strings, or
>>>>>>     -- as strings structured according to a named Syntax Encoding
>>>>>> Scheme,
>>>>>>   or
>>>>>      -- as Named Graphs with individual component triples
>>>>>> --  the ability to express the repeatability of components in such
>>>>>>   "statements"
>>>>>> --  the ability to designate properties as "mandatory", or "mandatory
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>     applicable", and the like
>>>>>> --  the ability to constrain the cardinality of "subsets of properties"
>>>>>>     within a particular context, such as the FRBR model
>>>>>> -- the ability to express mappings between properties in different
>>>>>>   namespaces.
>>>>>> It has also been suggested that we find examples of real metadata
>>>>>> instance
>>>>>> records from different communities and contexts -- e.g., libraries,
>>>>>>   government,
>>>>>   industry, and biomed -- for both testing and illustrating DCAM
>>>>>> constracts.
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>> dc-architecture&P=6405<https:/**/**
>>>>> webadmin?A2=ind1202&L=dc-**architecture&P=6405<>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tom Baker<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>   --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet

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