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

Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 08:37:20 -0800
Message-ID: <20110106083720.10994uer5ehn3z5s@kcoyle.net>
To: Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>
Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>:

>  As for myself, I do have a few more comments :
> - I think the emphasis on value vocabs is too important in the current
> definition of dataset. It's actually creating confusion, in my view.
> - 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'm not sure that the term "instance" will work -- even a value in a  
list could be considered an instance, no?

Somehow, the concept for a dataset is that it consists of the  
descriptions of entities that you need for an application or function,  
rather than the building blocks for creating such a description.  
(Which gets back to Mark's statement about "A record for Derrida's  
book in dataset X ...")

Essentially, one person's dataset could be another person's building  
block. But I think the key is that a dataset is complete for an  
application, while a value vocabulary needs to be combined with other  
data to be useful.

No, I'm not satisfied with that explanation... I'll ruminate on this  
and see if I can find better words.


> Emmanuelle
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark van Assem <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

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:41:09 UTC

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