Re: Metadata schemas

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the excellent link.  Does it strike you that the SWAD-E 
proposal seems to be mixing together two distinct problems?   I can see 
the relevance of concept-relation, but concept-equivalence is to me a 
cross-walking problem, not something to put into the Thesaurus model 
proper. 

Other than that my diagram pretty closely matches the SWAD-E proposal 
(pure luck), except that I use a namespace where SWAD-E uses the 
Thesaurus class, and the SWAD-E proposal breaks my Keyword into two 
parts: Concept, and Term.

The latter seems a useful distinction, but I'm not sure what the value 
is of adding cross-walking into the Thesaurus.

Cheers,
-kls


Seaborne, Andy wrote:

>Kevin,
>
>In loking at the relationships for keywording, we might find something
>useful from:
>
>http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/SWAD/thesaurus.html
>
>They have mapped the approaches in the thesaurus community into RDF schema
>and are moving on to look at the use of OWL.
>
>	Andy
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>  
>
>>From: Kevin Smathers <mailto:kevin.smathers@hp.com>
>>Date: 20 October 2003 18:07
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>To help my own understanding of the relevant schemas, I've mapped out
>>the IMS and OCW schemas as UML, which I've attached to this e-mail.  The
>>IMS diagram is taken from the RDF mapping of the IMS schema, which is
>>basically LOM translated into RDF with some funky bits (I'm not sure I
>>like the author's tendency to use namespaces as first-class bits of the
>>schema definition).  The OCW schema is just a straight forward mapping
>>of the XML metadata in our repository.
>>
>>Missing from the IMS schema is any reference to keywords.  The RDF
>>mapping document mentions keywords but simply suggests that the
>>dublin-core subject property be used to represent keywords.  This isn't
>>mentioned in the schema since the schema uses namespaces to represent
>>the relevant class and dc:subject isn't within the namespace.  The same
>>goes for description and for several other properties unfortunately.
>>
>>In thinking over keywords and thus vocabularies I thought a more
>>expressive form of subject was needed to represent the navigation
>>relationship between keywords since many vocabularies are structured
>>into hierarchies of related terms.  The third attachment is a tentative
>>model of a Keyword class that would model hierarchical relationships
>>among keywords to support vocabularies like the Getty AAT.
>>
>>(If anyone wants the source files, they are in CVS under
>>corpus/ims/OCW.  The UML diagrams were created using the open source
>>'dia' tool.)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>-kls
>>    
>>


-- 
========================================================
   Kevin Smathers                kevin.smathers@hp.com    
   Hewlett-Packard               kevin@ank.com            
   Palo Alto Research Lab                                 
   1501 Page Mill Rd.            650-857-4477 work        
   M/S 1135                      650-852-8186 fax         
   Palo Alto, CA 94304           510-247-1031 home        
========================================================
use "Standard::Disclaimer";
carp("This message was printed on 100% recycled bits.");

Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 14:06:14 UTC