W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Library data diagram

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:38:36 -0700
Message-ID: <20100831203836.4pmsrje5ck44wcwo@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Since there hasn't been discussion of this, I will throw out something  
that I noticed in Emmanuelle's diagram that struck me as significant.  
(And if I'm mis-interpreting it, Em, please speak up!)

The Singapore Framework places guidance rules outside of the flow of  
vocabulary and DCAP development. This makes me think that in SF the  
guidance rules are developed and applied after the other steps toward  
an application profile have taken place. This is accurate in terms of  
Dublin Core metadata, which was developed initially without actual  
guidance rules.

In Emmanuelle's diagram of library metadata, the guidance rules appear  
to precede the vocabulary. This is accurate in terms of library  
metadata, in which the vocabularies arise from the guidance rules.

These two models, DC and libraries, seem to me to be the extremes of  
the development continuum. In libraries the guidance rules are the  
most important aspect of the metadata creation activity, and in Dublin  
Core they can almost be considered unnecessary. My suspicion is that  
most communities that create metadata fall somewhere in between these  
two. There is some concept of guidance in the definitions of goals and  
functions that the metadata is created to address, and some sense of  
the types of values that each property will represent, but the rules  
are not paramount the way they are in libraries. At the same time,  
unlike Dublin Core, few communities set out to create metadata that  
does not have a specific purpose and an intended application.

Therefore, it seems to me that the Singapore Framework may lean too  
far toward DC practice in terms of how communities define their needs  
and how  those needs lead to the definition of a vocabulary. I think  
that one solution would be to create a link in the SF between the  
community domain model and the metadata vocabularies. This would  
imitate the relationship between the FRBR domain model and the FR  
vocabularies. I think that this is the correct place for that type of  
analysis to happen, rather than in the guidance rules, as is the case  
with libraries.

If I haven't explained this well, maybe I can do better at the f2f, or  
at least in the hallway nearby. :-)

kc

Quoting Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>:

> Following up on Karen's initiative to create a wiki page on library data
> resources [1], and with her help and support, I've been working on a diagram
> to represent how these library standards are related. The diagram is
> uploaded as a PDF file on the wiki [2].
>
> The diagram also includes a timeline for the main standards, and a proposed
> parallel view of these library standards, the Singapore framework, and
> Linked Data standards.
> It is a very simplified view and I'm aware of it, but I hope it will help
> with the understanding of our legacy standards.
>
> Emmanuelle
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_Data_Resources
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LayeredModelV3.pdf
>
>
> --
> =====
> Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
> Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 03:39:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 September 2010 03:39:11 GMT