Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]
In addition to DC-TEXT [1], there is a MoinMoin wiki syntax for embedding DSP constraints into a human-readable wiki document in a form that a script can extract to XML [2]. To see this applied to the Eprints profile [3], run the script DSP2XML [4]. The source code is available at [5]. Tom [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-text/ [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/10/06/dsp-wiki-syntax/ [3] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/EprintsApplicationProfile [4] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/EprintsApplicationProfile?action =DSP2XML [5] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/10/06/dsp-wiki- syntax/DescriptionSetProfile-dist.zip Very neat - but it seems the reverse of what I'd instinctively look to do - that is, start with an XML version of the DSP and then integrate into a human readable environment? Owen
Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]
Ideally, the usage guidelines would explain *why* this is the case in a way that makes sense to the cataloger. I think different communities will do this differently, but I suspect that the library community will continue to want very detailed, human-readable rules. I agree There is some discussion about figuring out a way to embed the DSP in the guidelines document (or vice versa) in a way that the two are really one document with some machine-actionable code and some human-readable guidelines. The SWAP document heads in this direction, I believe: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Scholarly_Works_Appli cation_Profile See the link note about DC-text format near the top of that document. f(http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCText) I'm not convinced you could do the same with RDA because of the complexity of the instructions, but it would be interesting to try. I'll have a look - this does seem to be the kind of thing I'm thinking of. I think that actually we might find that RDA looked much simpler (and it could hardly look more complex) if we did manage to express it as a DSP plus DC-Text representation plus usage guidelines. Clearly it would also allow us to take advantage of the vocab lists you have already created and integrate them back into the documentation Owen
Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 08:56:38AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote: On the otherhand, you clearly do need a human readable version of the standard - if we talk about library cataloguing, you don't want to give a cataloguer a copy of the DSP to refer to, but something a bit more (human) usable, which I'll call the 'manual'. It seems to me that ideally this 'manual' combines information from the DSP (in a human readable format) with the usage guidelines, and that the usage guidelines should not repeat information already encoded in the DSP. I suppose what I'm thinking of is establishing something like 'good practice' for the usage guidelines, and that these would say 'do not repeat information that is already encoded in the DSP' There is some discussion about figuring out a way to embed the DSP in the guidelines document (or vice versa) in a way that the two are really one document with some machine-actionable code and some human-readable guidelines. The SWAP document heads in this direction, I believe: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Scholarly_Works_Application_Profile See the link note about DC-text format near the top of that document. f(http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCText) In addition to DC-TEXT [1], there is a MoinMoin wiki syntax for embedding DSP constraints into a human-readable wiki document in a form that a script can extract to XML [2]. To see this applied to the Eprints profile [3], run the script DSP2XML [4]. The source code is available at [5]. Tom [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-text/ [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/10/06/dsp-wiki-syntax/ [3] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/EprintsApplicationProfile [4] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/EprintsApplicationProfile?action=DSP2XML [5] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/10/06/dsp-wiki-syntax/DescriptionSetProfile-dist.zip -- Tom Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]
it really is about this kind of interoperability?) The purpose behind the Singapore Framework for Application Profiles is to make it possible to have interoperability between DCAPs even though they can vary in many ways. The engineering concept is that this will guarantee interoperability at a machine-code level. I honestly can't comment on that since I don't think about things at that level of abstraction/engineering. Even if the creation of APs using these standards doesn't guarantee interoperability at a machine-code level, I like the fact that we have some guidance in terms of defining metadata. I see real value in the definition of properties and vocabularies (controlled lists) in a standard way, plus the definition of value types (plain text, structured, controlled vocabulary, complex), and the various constraints (repeatable/not, mandatory/not). Beyond the machine-processing issues, it would be useful for us to use these same conventions when defining our metadata as a way to communicate better between metadata communities. Finally, it looks to me like RDA would benefit immensely from being expressed as a DSP plus usage guidelines... Amen. And thanks again, kc Owen Owen Stephens Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources Central Library Imperial College London South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: 04 November 2008 13:42 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008] Folks, two new documents have been published on the Dublin Core web site, and I would very much like to get any comments you have on them. Officially, comments must be sent to the dc-general list (details below), but if there is discussion on these lists, I can summarize it there. The first document is one I worked on -- painfully, I must say -- that attempts to explain the DC concept of Application Profiles. These are concepts we want to apply in the DC/RDA work, and my personal question to you all is: DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? Can we use this in our metadata environment? What's missing, what doesn't work, what needs clarification? The next document addresses something I blogged recently: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2008/10/semantics-of-semantic.html which is some confusion caused by the use of the term semantic web. This document is related to the Application Profile document in that it defines what we need so that different metadata sets can be interoperable, another very important point for those of us working in the library systems area. The document is from an engineering point of view in its details, but the general concepts are quite common sense-ible. Again, please let us know if there are areas that need clarification. Given that this is election day, may I suggest that a printout of one or both of these documents will occupy you fully while you are in line waiting to perform your patriotic (and moral) duty. VOTE! READ! EVOLVE! Thank you, kc _ Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles published as a Working Draft 2008-11-03, The new DCMI Working Draft http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/11/03/profile-guidelines/ Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles describes the key components of an application profile and walks the reader through the process of designing a profile. Addressed primarily to a non-technical audience, the guidelines also provide a technical appendix about modeling the metadata interoperably for use in linked data environments. This draft will be revised in response to feedback from readers. Interested members of the public are invited to post comments by 1 December 2008 to the http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=dc-general DC-GENERAL mailing list, including [Public Comment] in the subject line. _ Interoperability Levels for Dublin Core Metadata published as a Working Draft 2008-11-03, http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/11/03/interoperability-levels/ Interoperability Levels for Dublin Core Metadata, published today as a DCMI Working Draft, discusses the modeling choices involved in designing metadata applications for different types of interoperability. At Level 1, applications use data components with shared natural- language definitions. At Level 2, data is based on the formal-semantic model of the W3C Resource Description Framework. At Level 3, data is structured as Description Sets (i.e., as records). At Level 4, data content is subject to a shared set of constraints (as described in a Description Set Profile). Conformance tests and examples are provided for each level. The Working Draft represents work in progress for which the authors seek feedback. Interested members of the public are invited to post comments by 1 December 2008 to the http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin
Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]
Karen, I don't have anything useful to add, but just wanted to express my gratitude and second Owen's comment that this document is very nicely done. The breakdown of key components (e.g., functional requirements vs. domain model vs. usage guidelines, etc.) is quite helpful, as is the diagram of the Singapore Framework. I also appreciated the concrete example of the Bookshelf DCAP, and the demonstration of RDF triples in the context of a domain model (i.e., book and author as entities; title and name as properties; is authored by as a relationship). I'm intrigued by the possibility of integrating more dynamic, visually interesting applications of LCSH (http://lcsh.info/) and other vocabularies into our catalogs, and this document helps me better understand the prerequisites and opportunities to keep in mind. / Daniel -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:07 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008] Thank you, Owen! A few comments interspersed... Stephens, Owen wrote: Hi Karen, Yes - the document on DCAP makes sense (this maybe the first time I've ever uttered these words on a first reading of DCMI documentation - so well done!) wow
