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

Re: Library data diagram

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:47:38 -0400
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Andy Powell <andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100904194738.GB3740@octavius>
Hi Jeff,

On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 11:38:19PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote:
> I assume that resources modeled in OWL (owl:Class, owl:ObjectProperty,
> individuals, etc.) could be "reused" in a DC application profile. I
> think we're on the same page on this point.

Yes :-)

> > In this context, the point of a "DC application profile"
> > would be to specify the pattern of resource descriptions using
> > RDF properties and classes.  For example, the application
> > profile would specify that the property ex:describes be used
> > when relating an instance of ex:BibRecord to an instance of
> > resource (which would be inferred to be a frbr:Manifestation).
> > It would specify the template by which instance metadata,
> > such as 12345/x-dc.rdf, is created.
> 
> From this example, it sounds like DC application profiles are coupled
> with specific conceptual models (e.g. the EPrints model) that
> more-or-less *could* be represented in OWL. 

A particular DC application profile is based on a particular
"domain model".  A Domain Model is a model of things
being described in metadata -- such as, in the case of the
EPrints/SWAP application profile, an Agent, Scholarly Work,
Expression, Manifestation, and Item.

>                                               For sure, the maddening
> thing about RDF is that there are so many equivalent ways to *represent*
> RDF that it is unreasonably hard for humans to cope. I can believe this
> is an important problem that needs to be solved, but since RDF/XML is
> XML why not create an XML Schema to constrain the OWL individuals
> instead?

That was roughly the intention of the approach embodied
in the DCMI Abstract Model [1] and Description Set Profile
constraint language [2] -- to provide a language for describing
your particular model in a way that can be expressed and
syntactically validated in your syntax of choice (including
XML Schema), yet maps straightforwardly to triples.

If the DCAM/DSP approach has been surpassed or superseded by 
better options, I would very much like to get these on the table
in the joint meeting of LLD XG and the DCMI Architecture Forum
on Friday, 22 October [3].

Tom

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/JointMeeting2010

-- 
Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2010 19:48:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 4 September 2010 19:48:26 GMT