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

Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:44:52 -0800
Message-ID: <20110121114452.14413zm2hndy3ho4@kcoyle.net>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, gordon@gordondunsire.com, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Jeff, that's my interpretation based on the fact that they are  
disjoint (at least in RDA they are) and inter-dependent (there's no  
Expression w/o Work, etc.), so I can't think of a way to serialize  
them except as records. I would love to see a different possibility,  
because I don't think this is a good model.


Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:

> Karen,
> Can you find some wording that supports your claim that group 1  
> entities are modeled as records? I've always thought of it more as  
> an ER model.
> Jeff
> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:57:25AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> First, the FRBR entities of Group 1 are modeled as separate records
>> (unfortunately). That's something I see as problematic, but that's
>> how it is. It is my impression that in each such record, all of the
>> triples will have the same subject. Maybe we need to try out some
>> examples and see if this is true.
> Thank you for explaining that!
> I immediately wonder whether there are two (or more) ways of
> understanding "record" -- one of the record as a serialized
> blob held on hard disks and exchanged over the wire, and
> another as something more conceptual, e.g., as a grouping of
> information.
> If four records were grouped into a serialized blob, given
> an identifier, and managed a particular database as a whole,
> would that blob also be considered a record?  I'm not looking
> for an answer, just asking the question...
>> Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that this is the right way
>> to do it. I'm trying to explain current thinking, as I read it, in
>> library cataloging.
> Understood!  I'm trying to understand differences in underlying
> assumptions so that we can articulate and explain them more
> clearly.
>> In my mind, the DCAM represents a full data model, not a record. The
>> library world also has a data model, with 3 entity types, the three
>> FRBR groups (and all groups are actually multiple entities). But
>> each entity is a separate record in the instance data.
> I don't want to take this thread in the direction of DCAM,
> but the general idea of DCAM was to provide an abstract
> syntax for the contents of a "record", as in: "Description
> sets are instantiated, for the purposes of exchange between
> software applications, in the form of metadata records" [1].
> To the extent DCAM provides a full data model, that model is
> based largely on RDF -- with the addition of named-graph-like
> constructs not in RDF per se, such as Description and
> Description Set.  In that sense, I see DCAM as orthogonal
> to, i.e., not really comparable with, FRBR as a data model.
> And yes, I acknowledge that DCAM is confusing on these
> points.
>> Note that library records often
>> contain administrative data about the record or the creation of the
>> record, and this isn't distinguished from data about the primary
>> entity. Other than that I do believe that each record has a single
>> focus today.
> I'm willing to believe that most records _do_ have a single
> focus, but administrative data is a good example.  I took
> a few minutes to look up some examples of library records,
> and the first one I saw had information along the lines of:
>      Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1992.
> ...which I would be more inclined to translate into triples as:
>     :X dct:date             "1992"
>     :X dct:publisher        :Y
>     :Y ex:name              "Springer Verlag"
>     :Y ex:location          "Berlin"
> ...rather than as, say:
>     :X dct:date             "1992"
>     :X dct:publisher        "Springer Verlag"
>     :X ex:publisherlocation "Berlin"
> ...where "Berlin" is directly an attribute of resource "W" --
> which, among other things, would lose the relationship between
> "Berlin" and "Springer Verlag".
> Tom
> [1] http://www.dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/#sect-3
> --
> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 19:45:35 UTC

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