- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:29:24 -0800
- To: Manue <manue@figoblog.org>
- Cc: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Haffner, Alexander" <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Manue <manue@figoblog.org>: > > Why not "metadata vocabularies" ? > > Emmanuelle > > PS: I'm not arguing on "value vocabularies", which seems clear enough. > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM, ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu> wrote: >> +1 Mark. >> “Value vocabularies” is understandable, although it may limit to those only >> to be used as ‘values’. (There are other functions a KOS can perform). >> ‘Properties’ has different meanings in different communities. It could be >> confusing when it is not used with context. It may also mislead when mapping >> different types of resources. ‘Metadata element set’ is a term widely >> accepted and has clear meaning. What people want to use the elements for >> depend on the implementations. >> Marcia >> >> On 11/2/10 12:08 PM, "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> So we should choose two different terms and in our report explain those >> terms in relation to terms that may be more familiar to specific parts >> of our audience. >> >> "Value vocabularies" seems to be working for most. >> >> A reason not to choose "properties" as you suggest is that those are RDF >> centric terms, so none of our audience will get it immediately, while >> choosing e.g. metadata element set has the advantage that some in the >> audience will immediately get it. >> >> Mark >> >> On 02/11/2010 16:49, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> The term "vocabularies" gets used for a lot of different things in >>> semantic web discussions. However, as this thread shows, there isn't an >>> obvious set of clear terms to use in its place. >>> >>> Depending on who you are talking to, the things that DCMI calls "value >>> vocabularies" are "controlled lists of terms" or "authority lists" or >>> "pick lists." Although 'value vocabulary' is a clear distinction to >>> adherents of DCAM, I have not heard that phrase used by any other >>> communities. When I talk to librarians, I often use the phrase >>> "controlled list" in my explanation. It would be good to get the 'value >>> vocabulary' concept disseminated broadly. >>> >>> The analogy to properties is "data elements" in the traditional IT >>> world. In fact, the MARC documentation refers to the fields and >>> subfields as data elements. For that reason, "metadata element" and >>> "metadata element set" seem to resonate with folks who are already >>> somewhat familiar with a data processing model. However, I worry that >>> people will assume that a property is the same as a data element. >>> >>> The terms "property," "value" and "statement" have no meaning for folks >>> in the library world. These are new concepts, and should be introduced >>> as representing a new way of creating and using metadata. I think it is >>> legitimate to say that MARC does not have properties (in the semweb >>> sense), and there are no statements in a MARC record as it is coded >>> today. The advantage here is that librarians can move to new concepts >>> and a new vocabulary about those concepts, which I think will help keep >>> them from dragging the old ideas along with them into the semantic web.. >>> >>> Therefore (after all of that), I would vote for using 'value >>> vocabularies' and 'properties' ('set of properties' for something like >>> foaf or dcterms?), but explain them in terms of controlled lists and >>> data elements, emphasizing the differences. >>> >>> Yep, easier said than done. >>> >>> kc >>> >>> Quoting Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>: >>> >>>> >>>>> Generally the whole situation is a mess, and can only be understood >>>>> sociologically / historically. Asking whether eg. 'schemas' and >>>>> 'ontologies' are the same or different doesn't get us very far.. Asking >>>>> about which communities used which terms maybe gets us a bit >>>>> further... >>>> >>>> Ok, If the question is about communities we're communicating with, then >>>> >>>> "element set" would probably work here >>>> >>>> (come to think of it, I used "metadata element set" to refer to DC etc. >>>> in my thesis, and later link that to the term "schemas" to denote how >>>> DC looks like in RDF, which then become "metadata element schemas" >>>> >>>> >>>> I also like "value vocabulary" because it sort of indicates that they >>>> go into the object part ("value") of a triple. >>>> >>>>> I quite like 'vocabulary' as it covers schema, ontology, metadata set, >>>>> and also SKOS/thesaurus stuff too. >>>> >>>> Yes, but we need separate terms for the things "vocabulary" may >>>> encompass. In other words it's either too broad or means different >>>> things to different people. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam >>>> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mark van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam >> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark >> >> >> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 13:30:05 UTC