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 17:31:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4D25EE75.1070503@cs.vu.nl>
To: Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>
CC: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>


> I think it's important to be very specific about what we consider a
> "value" can be, hence the examples.

Yes, you're probably right. Ok, it stays in :)

> - I think the emphasis on value vocabs is too important in the current
> definition of dataset. It's actually creating confusion, in my view.

Hm... the emphesis is only in the confusions paragraph, or where do you 
think its overemphasised?

It's hard to define what a metadata record is ("dataset" being just a 
set of such records) without spending some time on metadata elements and 
value vocabs.

Do you have specific suggestions on what to add/change?

> - I'm wondering if we could use the term "instance" (a dataset is a
> collection of instance descriptions) or is it too implementation oriented ?

I thought it might be too RDF centric term (non-intuitive to library 
people), and moreover the instances we're talking about here are always 
"metadata records" anyway.

Else we would have to say something ugly like "instance of metadata 
element set entity" or "instance of metadata record type" to explain it. 
Suggestions to circumvent this very welcome!


> Emmanuelle
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl
> <mailto:mark@cs.vu.nl>> wrote:
>     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
> --
> =====
> Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
> Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:32:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:56 UTC