- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:47:38 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: Andy Powell <andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Hi Jeff, On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 11:38:19PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote: > I assume that resources modeled in OWL (owl:Class, owl:ObjectProperty, > individuals, etc.) could be "reused" in a DC application profile. I > think we're on the same page on this point. Yes :-) > > In this context, the point of a "DC application profile" > > would be to specify the pattern of resource descriptions using > > RDF properties and classes. For example, the application > > profile would specify that the property ex:describes be used > > when relating an instance of ex:BibRecord to an instance of > > resource (which would be inferred to be a frbr:Manifestation). > > It would specify the template by which instance metadata, > > such as 12345/x-dc.rdf, is created. > > From this example, it sounds like DC application profiles are coupled > with specific conceptual models (e.g. the EPrints model) that > more-or-less *could* be represented in OWL. A particular DC application profile is based on a particular "domain model". A Domain Model is a model of things being described in metadata -- such as, in the case of the EPrints/SWAP application profile, an Agent, Scholarly Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item. > For sure, the maddening > thing about RDF is that there are so many equivalent ways to *represent* > RDF that it is unreasonably hard for humans to cope. I can believe this > is an important problem that needs to be solved, but since RDF/XML is > XML why not create an XML Schema to constrain the OWL individuals > instead? That was roughly the intention of the approach embodied in the DCMI Abstract Model [1] and Description Set Profile constraint language [2] -- to provide a language for describing your particular model in a way that can be expressed and syntactically validated in your syntax of choice (including XML Schema), yet maps straightforwardly to triples. If the DCAM/DSP approach has been surpassed or superseded by better options, I would very much like to get these on the table in the joint meeting of LLD XG and the DCMI Architecture Forum on Friday, 22 October [3]. Tom [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/ [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/ [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/JointMeeting2010 -- Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2010 19:48:26 UTC