Re: FW: SIMILE call re: DSpace history system, 25-Apr-03

some other comments on the document under discussion:

Document lists properties of various (implicit) schema.  Ultimately,
we'll want an english description of each such property (in jason's
document, and perhaps stored within the repository)

Jasons suggests making assertions about relationship between eg
dublincore properties and harmony properties.  While it is not illegal
for us to do this, I consider it a bit shaky: who are we to say what
the harmony or dublincore schema writers think?  we'll eventually have
to deal with such translation issues (that is one of the key ideas of
the semantic wb) but perhaps we sidestep for now.  e.g, jason points
out that hasPart appears in both dublincore and harmony.  fine: let's
use only one of the two hasPart properties. 

Having types is nice of course, but unclear to me why not having them
"makes useful RDF queries more difficult to construct".  we certainly
should NOT assume type inference based on URL.

General question: do we want to enforce schema validation within the
dspace repository (big burden on the library) or do we just use schema
as "hint"?  Ie, where on the spectrum between "total schema
compliance" (traditional database) and "do what you feel like"
(haystackish) there are many operating points.  although semantic web
may _allow_ for sloppy data/schema violations, certain organization
may be willing to commit to tighter obedience.  is dspace one such?

Didn't undertand section on "relationships based on local identifiers"

d

Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 14:03:21 UTC