- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:01:36 +0200
- 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? cheers, Dan > 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