I forwarded your response to the OSWG mailing list as well...hopefully
that's not a problem. I'm including the list in this response.
Kendall Clark wrote:
> >> Is the list of document types extensible? I can think of a
> >> couple of others I would like to add for the OSWG, for example
> >> ("article", "research paper").
> Paul> yes it is extensible and it would be simple and good to add
> Paul> the type you mention
>
> Of course, how and when and why and who does this is still all open; I
> suspect that this is part of what Jane wants to tell us on her return
> from hanging out with the Dublin Core bigwigs. (I'm so jealous! :> )
I hope you'll keep us up to date on all of this. It's a really
interesting project.
> >> I'm also a little confused about the fact that the type can be
> >> repeatable. Does this mean you can classify a single document
> >> in more than one type catagory? (I've possibly missed
> >> something :->)
> Paul> yes something could conceivably be considered a research
> Paul> paper might become a chapter or a mini-How-To might graduate
> Paul> to a How-To
>
> Yes, it could be used in at least two ways: (1) track the history of a
> resource, and (2) some resources really do just belong in multiple
> categories.
Ah, okay, I see now.
> However, I do think (but, again, I may be the only one) that we
> should, perhaps before releasing 1.0, carefully consider whether each
> and every LDP Core element is both repeatable and optional. I can
> imagine situations where this will just cause problems, at least in
> the absence of some other meta-metadata that can help resolve
> ambiguities.
There was an awful lot of Core elements that were repeatable. The
"title" one, to be honest, confused me a little, for the reasons you
outlined.
> >> I'm not quite sure I understand the purpose of "relation".
> >> Could you expand on that a bit here?
> Paul> as i understand it (kendall and miles feel free to jump in
> Paul> and set me straight). relation is for say chapters and parts
> Paul> of collections or say a conference paper etc.
>
> Yeah, this is basically right, Paul; but it's more flexible as well;
> you can list mirrors in a relation element for example.
You might want to clarify this a bit in your explanation of the metadata
elements on your site. The description there was a bit succinct, but
now that you've expanded a bit, I understand what it's for and why it's
useful.
> I do think that for the full-on 1.0 release of LDP Core, we should
> think seriously about adding some kind of type to RELATION, so that
> you could do stuff like:
>
> <relation type="isMirrorOf|isAKindOf|isAPartOf|..." ../>
If you came up with a reasonably solid list of types for this, it would
be useful. The relation metadata element is definitely one that needs
to be repeatable, but you probably already know that.
> Right. Basically you can do with this whatever you can do with RDF
> stuff generally; so I suspect, in addition to what Paul's mentioned,
> command-line tools for searching LDP (and other) collections in nicely
> constrained ways (I predicted this in my LDP DigLib essay; a
> command-line tool 'ldpfind' like Veillard's excellent rpmfind); this
> will also make it possible to build meta-collections around LDP
> collections in intelligent ways.
Oh, the "ldpfind" tool is an awfully good idea. I'm a little concerned
about the name, of course, since the OSWG has nothing to do with the LDP
at the moment. Not to mention the FreeBSD project, the GNOME
Documentation Project, et al. I don't think that it would be
unrealistic to expand the scope to include all open-source/open-content
documentation projects/repositories.
> Intelligent metadata opens up a lot of avenues of information reuse,
> repurposing, etc.
I can definitely see some massively useful things coming out of your
project, assuming that we can get everyone to cooperate and submit
entries into the "card catalog". In fact, your project will completely
eliminate the need for a project that I've had cooking in the back of my
head for a while -- my (currently idea-form-only) "Open Source Index"
project. I even registered opensourceindex.org for it a while ago, but
haven't had any time to plan any further. Your project is _much_ more
useful, however, and if there's anything I (as an individual or as one
of the current maintainers of the OSWG) can do to help, just let me
know.
You've got me all excited about it, now :>
- deb
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
