W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > August 2010

Re: RDA and ranges

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:01:36 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimgLhOJJbPJpbpJSbzhjbJQMvGMnZCaO1rBkWs-@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> There's been something tickling my brain for a bit, so I sat down to try to
> draw up a diagram. Essentially, the question is: what is the domain & range
> of an RDA property? Then I began to wonder what is the domain and range of a
> property based on RDA but not bound to a FRBR domain?
> My unfinished diagram is here:
> kcoyle.net/domainsranges.pdf
> and I now realize that title isn't the best example to use. But the key
> element, in my mind, is that the RDA guidance rules both guide the metadata
> creator and define the range of the element. Those ranges are inherent in
> the rules but have not been extracted into the registry, in part because
> many of the ranges are quite complex. In the rules you find how the property
> is to be structured and what values are valid, which to me is the definition
> of the range.
> Note that in the diagram I have only filled in the domain and range at the
> bottom (most specific) level. That is because I'm not sure what to do beyond
> that. If we treat the RDA rules as describing the ranges for the properties,
> then all of the properties, regardless of whether they are bound to FRBR,
> are very tightly defined (probably what Tom would call ontologically
> strict). If we wish for other communities to provide guidance rules of their
> own for the properties, then it becomes hard to think of them as RDA
> properties. (This is a can of worms that has been a matter of discussion
> between JSC and the registry.)
> What I am getting at is that we may need a hierarchy that goes like this
> (from most specific to most general):
> 1. RDA + FRBR -- range is as defined in RDA; domain is FRBR entity
> 2. RDA alone -- range is as defined in RDA; no domain?
> 3. Property with definition -- range and domain are open
> I hope I've made some sense here. Although we've discussed whether RDA
> properties must be bound to FRBR, in fact I think that RDA's definition of
> the values/ranges is more of a constraint than FRBR.

This is a useful exercise!

Quick question. Going from the diagram alone, it isn't clear to me
exactly how dcterms:title is more general than rdvocab:title.

* dcterms:title, definition: A name given to the resource.
* rdvocab:title, definition: A word, character, or group of words
and/or characters that names a resource or a work contained in it.

>From those definitions alone, it seems that rdvocab:title allows some
cases that aren't anticipated by dcterms:title, namely when the value
is a name for a work contained within the main thing we're describing.

I read "a word, character, or group of words and/or characters" as
approximating the concept of "text", although on a strict reading, it
seems a little confused as to whether the group of words/characters is
necessarily ordered. Presumably the ordered group of characters [ "H",
"a", "m", "l", "t", "e" ] isn't a name given to Shakespeare's Hamlet,
whereas the ordered group  [ "H", "a", "m", "l", "e", "t" ] is?

If we proceed with this level of nitpicking it'll take forever; is it
OK to assume "text that" when I see "A word, character, or group of
words and/or characters that"? In which case, next question is whether
the text can be a separate entity/resource/thing rather what RDF would
call a literal. If 'yes', I can't see anything that would be a value
fitting the dcterms:title definition but fails to match rdvocab:title;
if 'no', it seems the properties as defined have only partial overlap
rather than forming a hierarchy.

All that said, your main point seems to be around the RD vocab and
FRBR, perhaps the DC aspect is a distraction?



> kc
> p.s. I will try to locate some better examples of RDA rules as ranges.
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 07:02:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:57 UTC