RE: Library data diagram

I have the feeling that "application profiles" aren't necessary for OWL
vocabularies because they are relatively self-explanatory. DC
vocabularies don't use OWL so they have to be explained with
"application profiles". IMO, Linked Data is easier to understand if it
the resources are based on OWL. Comments?

dc: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
dcterm: http://purl.org/dc/terms/
dcam: http://purl.org/dc/dcam/
dctype: http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/
others?

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:30 AM
> To: Karen Coyle
> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Library data diagram
> 
> Thank you, Emmanuelle, for drawing up the comparative
> diagrams [1] and thank you, Karen, for getting the ball
> rolling on discussion.
> 
> A comment specifically on Singapore Framework [2]...
> 
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:38:36PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > The Singapore Framework places guidance rules outside of the flow of
> > vocabulary and DCAP development. This makes me think that in SF the
> > guidance rules are developed and applied after the other steps
toward
> > an application profile have taken place.
> 
> As I see it, the SF diagram is intended to show how the
> components of an "application profile" relate to each other
> and to underlying foundational standards (RDF).
> 
> The diagram does also suggest a workflow, and I too like to
> present it this way -- starting with Functional Requirements,
> through defining a Domain Model, specifying a Description Set
> Profile and, finally, creator a Data Format, with the designer
> "dipping down" one level to create new or cite existing domain
> models and vocabularies.  And as a rough approximation, this
> seems like a reasonable way to proceed as long as it is not
> applied too mechanically.  In the end, though, SF is meant
> to depict less a specific sequence of tasks than a picture of
> how things relate.
> 
> >                                          This is accurate in terms
of
> > Dublin Core metadata, which was developed initially without actual
> > guidance rules.
> >
> > In Emmanuelle's diagram of library metadata, the guidance rules
> appear
> > to precede the vocabulary. This is accurate in terms of library
> > metadata, in which the vocabularies arise from the guidance rules.
> >
> > These two models, DC and libraries, seem to me to be the extremes of
> > the development continuum. In libraries the guidance rules are the
> > most important aspect of the metadata creation activity, and in
> Dublin
> > Core they can almost be considered unnecessary.
> 
> If for libraries, guidance rules are the point of departure for
> metadata design, then "support for guidance rules" would quite
> simply need to be defined as a key functional requirement.
> 
> If this is done, then the metadata creation workflow in
> libraries can be seen as fitting both the Singapore Framework
> view and its implied workflow (which starts with Functional
> Requirements) -- only that, in this case, the functional
> requirements may be unusually heavy on existing guidance
> rules...
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LayeredModelV3.pdf
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
> 
> --
> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 15:08:26 UTC