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

Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:02:25 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Message-ID: <1137374020.645383.1294822945722.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxltgw17.schlund.de>
Re your last suggestion about discussing/describing the "record" concept in
Libraryland (it is not the same in Archiveland, or to a certain extent in
I touched on this during the discussion on the Collections cluster, which is
"about" the granularity of metadata focus as well asobtaining specific items.
Briefly, granularity of focus covers super-collection > collection > record >
record component (WEMI) > statement. RDF/Linked data provides a technical
framework for this last, lowest level of the metadata statement; although it has
always been part of library thinking (RDA focuses on the statement, not the
record), the technical environment has usually only supported the record as unit
of processing/granularity. Also, collection-level description at higher levels
has been generally neglected in Libraryland, probably because it mainly benefits
supra-institutional retrieval systems.
I hinted during the discussion that a separate wiki page on the topic of
granularity, linked to the Collections cluster, might be useful. I was also
thinking of the BibData cluster, where the background section attempts to raise
the issue of moving from record to statement. So I was intending to put together
such a wiki page, which could also be linked to the Library Terminology page. Of
course I agree with you that this is a crucial issue (probably the most
important single strategic issues for library linked data), and it's more than
just a terminology issue.
So I'm happy to start a draft wiki page on metadata granularity which can be
linked appropriately to other outputs like clusters and terminologies. Is this
ok with everyone?


On 12 January 2011 at 03:55 Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:

> A few general comments re: our categories [1]:
> -- I'd like for us to say more explicitly, up-front,
>    that we are referring to things by these three handles --
>    Dataset, Metadata Element Set, and Value Vocabulary -- based
>    on their typical usage. And that as these things can be used
>    in ways other than their "typical" usage, the categories are
>    not, as Mark already puts it, "airtight".  As Mikael put
>    it, the three handles are "not mainly used to categorize
>    vocabularies but rather to analyze how vocabularies are
>    used and combined in metadata application profiles".
> -- I'm wondering if Dataset is simply a superset of Metadata
>    Element Set and Value Vocabulary -- i.e., anything we
>    typically think of as an MES or VV, when used in a metadata
>    context for anything other than as a source of "elements"
>    or "values" for a "record" (or "application profile"),
>    would fall under the definition of Dataset.  Can anyone
>    think of counter-examples?
> -- I'm slightly bothered by the emphasis -- particularly (but not
>    only) in the definition of Dataset -- on the notion of a
>    "structured metadata record".  By this criterion, I'm
>    guessing that many of the nodes in the Linked Open Data
>    cloud would not qualify as Datasets simply because the
>    data, while possibly derived from records, does not, when
>    expressed as triples, consist explicitly of "records".
> -- I'm thinking that the Library Terminology page might
>    therefore include an entry on records, citing some of the
>    key definitions of "record" used in library science.  That
>    entry could be the place where the notion that a record is
>    "basically a collection of statements about ... one entity"
>    is called into question (by pointing out that in practice, records
>    typically include some description about several entities).
>    It could also provide a place to discuss the notion that
>    descriptive metadata, in a Linked Data context, is primarily
>    about description at the statement level, which is indeed
>    what lends it so well to linking and recombination.  That
>    entry could acknowledge the role of records in traditional
>    library science of providing a context for the provenance of
>    metadata and perhaps flag this as a crucial issue for Linked
>    Data (and RDF generally).
> Tom
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Vocabularies.2C_Element_sets.2C_Datasets
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2010Dec/0023.html
> --
> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 09:03:01 UTC

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