> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:
DC-
>
[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: 26 January 2012 23:31
> To:
[log in to unmask]
> Subject: DCAM: the analogy to SKOS
>
> In yesterday's Provenance Task Group telecon we found ourselves talking
> about DCAM [1]. One point of discussion was the analogy of DCAM to SKOS.
>
> On January 5, Andy had written:
>
> > So I think the pertinent question that needs to be answered pretty
> > early on in the outer layers of Stuart's onion is "why should I invest
> > time understanding the DCAM when I could be learning RDF/Linked
> Data/whatever instead?".
> >
> > If we compare the DCAM with, say, SKOS and ask the same kind of
> > question the answer is more obvious I think - people need to
> > understand both RDF and SKOS because SKOS gives them something useful
> > in the area of 'vocabulary' handling that RDF on its own doesn't give them.
> >
> > The answer for the DCAM is much less clear except in terms of the
> > original rationale for having the DCAM at all, i.e.
> >
> > "It provides an information model which is independent of any
> > particular [DCMI] encoding syntax. Such an information model allows us
> > to gain a better understanding of the kinds of [DCMI] descriptions
> > that we are encoding and facilitates the development of better mappings
> and cross-syntax translations"
> > ("[DCMI]" additions by me).
> >
> > which, unfortunately, is a very inward looking (and rather narrow)
> > rationale that is unlikely (as history has shown us) to be of much
> widespread interest.
>
> To which Kai had responded:
>
> > [The] analogy to SKOS is perfect, because that was exactly how I
> > started the RDF-based DCAM wiki page yesterday [1].
> > Provide DCAM as a model for metadata just like SKOS is for vocabulary
> > handling.
> >
> > [1]
http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Tech
>
> In yesterday's call, Kai elaborated on the notion of DCAM as an equivalent of
> SKOS for metadata. I understood him to say that SKOS is an RDF vocabulary,
> but one might also see it as an Abstract Model that could be used by people
> who do not care about RDF.
>
> This reminded me that in the Semantic Web Deployment WG, we did in
> effect try to express a high-level "abstract model" for SKOS (a formulation I
> actually helped write) [2]:
>
> Using SKOS, _concepts_ can be identified using URIs, _labeled_ with lexical
> strings in one or more natural languages, assigned _notations_ (lexical
> codes), _documented_ with various types of note, _linked to other
> concepts_
> and organized into informal hierarchies and association networks,
> aggregated into _concept schemes_, grouped into labeled and/or ordered
> _collections_, and _mapped_ to concepts in other schemes.
>
> ...summarizing the essence of SKOS in just one sentence. Arguably, this is
> the sort of formulation -- one which does not itself even mention RDF but
> which maps to RDF in the specification -- we could aspire to make for DCAM.
>
> I cannot readily formulate one sentence that summarizes what I think DCAM
> can offer, though it would perhaps be interesting to try. The story I have in
> mind for DCAM might say that metadata uses items of information -- strings
> and URIs, perhaps belonging to sets of strings or URIs (i.e., syntax or
> vocabulary encoding schemes) -- to describe (make statements about) things
> of interest; that it groups these items into Descriptions about one particular
> thing of interest and groups related Descriptions into Description Sets, which
> are often instantiated in implementations as "records".
>
> How these items are used to make meaningful "statements" about things
> would be the part that one inherits from RDF. DCAM, as I see it, can provide
> an "interface" to underlying (meaningful) statements by specifying patterns
> of information items grouped into Descriptions and Description Sets.
>
> If that is what DCAM is, or should be, then I wonder whether we can specify
> those patterns in enough detail to be useful as an interface to triples without
> becoming too complicated. In 2007-2008, for example, it seemed reasonable
> to translate "DCAM statements" about value resources using RDF statements
> with rdf:value and literals or RDF statements with dcam:memberOf and
> vocabulary encoding scheme URIs [3]. From the perspective of best practice,
> that looks like an oversimplification. Today, one might want to consider using
> various other properties in statements about a value resource -- rdfs:label,
> skos:prefLabel, skos:notation, foaf:name, or dcterms:title... -- though
> perhaps _not_ rdf:value [4]. Can a DCAM still be defined as an interface to
> triples as straightforward as [4], or would it need to evolve in the direction of
> a more complex and differentiated set of patterns?
>
> For discussion on Monday's call (at 11:00 EST)...
>
> Tom
>
> [1]
http://wiki.bib.uni-mannheim.de/dc-
> provenance/doku.php?id=minutes_2012_01_15
> [2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/
> [3]
http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/#sect-4
> [4]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/27
>
> --
> Tom Baker <
[log in to unmask]>
