W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > January 2011

Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 17:13:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4D25EA3E.5050704@cs.vu.nl>
To: Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>
CC: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Emma,

I saw you had already followed up on our action to clarify "value 
vocabularies".

I saw that you think we should clarify how value vocabularies actually 
appear in metadata records (as literals, codes, identifiers). While I 
kinda feel we should try to stay agnostic to that I kept it in, but 
rewrote it slightly:

"In actual metadata records, the values used can be literals, codes, or 
identifiers (including URIs), as long as these refer to a specific 
concept in a value vocabulary. "

I also moved your point re "closed list" up to the initial definition; 
this is indeed central to what a value vocab is.

Mark.

On 06/01/2011 16:34, Mark van Assem wrote:
> Hi Jodi,
>
> X and Y would be two collections ("datasets") from two different
> libraries. It could also be two subcollections or within one collection,
> but I think making them separate ones will make it more illustrative.
>
> Do you have a suggestion on how to clarify or replace X and Y with
> specific existing collections/libraries as examples?
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 06/01/2011 16:21, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>> Thanks for this, Mark! I especially like the 'confusions' area -- that
>> will make this quite useful.
>>
>> In this, it would be helpful if you'd explain what datasets X and Y
>> might be. Particular collections? Subcollections of a larger whole?
>> "in some cases records in a dataset are themselves used as values in
>> other datasets. For example, Derrida wrote a book that comments on
>> Heidegger's book "Sein und Zeit". A record for Derrida's book in dataset
>> X can state this by relating it to a record for Heidegger's book in
>> dataset Y. This statement in the Derrida record could consist of the
>> Dublin Core Subject with as value a reference to the Heidegger record.
>> In this case we would still term X and Y datasets, not a value
>> vocabularies."
>>
>> -Jodi
>>
>> On 6 Jan 2011, at 08:00, Mark van Assem wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As per my action I have written some text [1] to explain the terms
>>> "dataset, metadata element set, value vocabulary" with feedback from
>>> Karen and Antoine to address the things that don't fit very nicely.
>>>
>>> Please let me know what you think, after I've had your input we'll put
>>> it on the public list to get shot at.
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Vocabularies.2C_Element_sets.2C_Datasets
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/12/2010 18:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> I have been organizing the vocabularies and technologies on the
>>>> archives
>>>> cluster page [1] and it was a very interesting exercise trying to
>>>> determine what category some of the "things" fit into. This could turn
>>>> out to be a starting place for our upcoming discussion of our
>>>> definitions since it has real examples. The hard part seems to be value
>>>> vocabularies v. datasets, and I have a feeling that there will not be a
>>>> clear line between them.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Archives#Vocabularies_and_Technologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:14:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:14:43 GMT