Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

OK thanks !

I think it's important to be very specific about what we consider a "value"
can be, hence the examples.
But then we can see if we have further feedback on the public list (when
you're ready).

 As for myself, I do have a few more comments :
- I think the emphasis on value vocabs is too important in the current
definition of dataset. It's actually creating confusion, in my view.
- I'm wondering if we could use the term "instance" (a dataset is a
collection of instance descriptions) or is it too implementation oriented ?

Emmanuelle

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Emma,
>
> I saw you had already followed up on our action to clarify "value
> vocabularies".
>
> I saw that you think we should clarify how value vocabularies actually
> appear in metadata records (as literals, codes, identifiers). While I kinda
> feel we should try to stay agnostic to that I kept it in, but rewrote it
> slightly:
>
> "In actual metadata records, the values used can be literals, codes, or
> identifiers (including URIs), as long as these refer to a specific concept
> in a value vocabulary. "
>
> I also moved your point re "closed list" up to the initial definition; this
> is indeed central to what a value vocab is.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> On 06/01/2011 16:34, Mark van Assem wrote:
>
>> Hi Jodi,
>>
>> X and Y would be two collections ("datasets") from two different
>> libraries. It could also be two subcollections or within one collection,
>> but I think making them separate ones will make it more illustrative.
>>
>> Do you have a suggestion on how to clarify or replace X and Y with
>> specific existing collections/libraries as examples?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On 06/01/2011 16:21, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for this, Mark! I especially like the 'confusions' area -- that
>>> will make this quite useful.
>>>
>>> In this, it would be helpful if you'd explain what datasets X and Y
>>> might be. Particular collections? Subcollections of a larger whole?
>>> "in some cases records in a dataset are themselves used as values in
>>> other datasets. For example, Derrida wrote a book that comments on
>>> Heidegger's book "Sein und Zeit". A record for Derrida's book in dataset
>>> X can state this by relating it to a record for Heidegger's book in
>>> dataset Y. This statement in the Derrida record could consist of the
>>> Dublin Core Subject with as value a reference to the Heidegger record.
>>> In this case we would still term X and Y datasets, not a value
>>> vocabularies."
>>>
>>> -Jodi
>>>
>>> On 6 Jan 2011, at 08:00, Mark van Assem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> As per my action I have written some text [1] to explain the terms
>>>> "dataset, metadata element set, value vocabulary" with feedback from
>>>> Karen and Antoine to address the things that don't fit very nicely.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know what you think, after I've had your input we'll put
>>>> it on the public list to get shot at.
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Vocabularies.2C_Element_sets.2C_Datasets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28/12/2010 18:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have been organizing the vocabularies and technologies on the
>>>>> archives
>>>>> cluster page [1] and it was a very interesting exercise trying to
>>>>> determine what category some of the "things" fit into. This could turn
>>>>> out to be a starting place for our upcoming discussion of our
>>>>> definitions since it has real examples. The hard part seems to be value
>>>>> vocabularies v. datasets, and I have a feeling that there will not be a
>>>>> clear line between them.
>>>>>
>>>>> kc
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Archives#Vocabularies_and_Technologies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>


-- 
=====
Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
Manue - http://www.figoblog.org