JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  February 2012

DC-ARCHITECTURE February 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCAM: Karen Coyle on application profile design patterns (2008)

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:22:42 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (139 lines)

On 2/29/12 6:23 AM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> Despite the 'baggage', I'd hate to see us throw out useful abstractions
> like 'Syntax Encoding Scheme' and even 'Vocabulary Encoding Scheme'
> _unless_ we can come up with equally abstract and precise but more
> colloquial terms.
>

I'm not suggesting that the abstractions or the terms be thrown out. I'm 
suggesting that the data gathering phase should be action-based and 
user-based, and that the abstractions should be derived from and shown 
to support the user-based view. I see it was a work flow issue for the 
group. I also see it was a way to make sure that the abstract model 
serves actual user needs. This is hard for people to do because DCAM 
already exists so the notions are already in people's heads. I suggest a 
"willful forgetting" for a short while so that user needs can be 
gathered. Then the abstract model can be postulated and the use cases 
can serve to make sure that all user needs are met. Mixing the abstract 
model with the use cases at this point pollutes the waters, so to speak, 
because it is mixing proposed user tasks with pre-determined solutions.

kc

> Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but I have observed when watching
> the use cases being developed for LOD-LAM, that they tended to boil down
> into a single metadata process flow use case:
>
>  1. Create data
>  2. Validate created data against an organizational/domain standard
>  3. Store valid data locally
>  4. Use locally (index, view, search, browse)
>  5. Disseminate/publish inter-organizationally (rss/atom, oai-pmh,
>     linked data)
>  6. Aggregate inter-organizational data
>  7. Validate aggregated data against an organizational/domain standard
>  8. Store valid aggregated data locally
>  9. Use locally (index, view, search, browse)
> 10. ... Rinse/repeat
>
> Regardless of the specifics entailed by these processing and management
> steps, the use cases all end up repeating this pattern at some level.
> It's steps 2, 5 and 7 that the DCAM addresses:
>
>   * What resources is our organization describing?
>   * What finite list of properties do we use to describe them?
>   * What constitutes valid data for each of those properties in the
>     context of our organizational needs?
>   * How can we describe those resources to consumers of our data about
>     them when we publish it outside of our organization in a way that
>     they will understand?
>
>
> The value of an abstract syntax (like SoDC or dc-text) for describing
> resource description validation and semantic constraints is its
> independence from implementation details. A metadata record is always a
> finite list of properties/statements; cardinality is cardinality
> regardless; a finite list of valid terms can be defined by a list of
> literals, or a location/identifier of that list, or a list of
> identifiers; a valid date must be a unix timestamp or it must be w3c; etc.
>
> Whether these constraints are expressed in RDFS/OWL or RIF or
> schematron, whether the data is stored or published in XML or RDF,
> shouldn't matter to the DCAM in exactly the same way that they shouldn't
> matter to the DCAP.
>
> Karen's generic list of things I 'want to do' is a perfect example of this.
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/28/12 3:09 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
>
>         Many of the patterns on [1] -- in my reading -- point to a
>         constraint language.
>
>
>     I wish I could be on this call, but I'm on another one. I do want to
>     say that an example like:
>
>     "A description with a single statement, which uses a literal value
>     with a Syntax encoding scheme."
>
>     is written in terms of an assumed solution rather than a user task
>     which may lead to a solution. If you've already got things called
>     "literal value" and "Syntax encoding scheme" you have started with a
>     fair amount of baggage. I would suggest expressing the examples in
>     terms of things that people want to do (actions) rather than
>     particular solutions ("syntax encoding scheme") and see what
>     solutions are needed.
>
>     And example of 'want to do':
>     - give a plain text description of something (the title of my book
>     is "")
>     - give a description of something using a controlled vocabulary of
>     terms that are listed here ("red" "yellow" "blue")
>     - give a description of something using a controlled vocabulary that
>     exists as a list somewhere and can be identified (...)
>     - express a value that is a known data type (e.g. currency)
>     - describe something that has multiple parts, all of them plain text
>     (RDA publisher statement, made up of place, publisher and date)
>     - etc.
>
>     kc
>
>
>
>         If so, does a constraint language need to be based on an
>         abstract model the way
>         DSP is based on DCAM?  What, then, are the requirements for DCAM?
>
>         Rather than jump straight to these abstractions, I'd like to use
>         examples to
>         clarify the basic requirements.
>
>         Tom
>
>         [1]
>         http://wiki.dublincore.org/__index.php/DCAM_Revision___Design_Patterns
>         <http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Design_Patterns>
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net
>     ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1202&L=DC-ARCHITECTURE&D=0&P=44087
www.jiscmail.ac.uk
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-10
72237
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:C7SXX4NMREOJJ7QFQNCXLXPN6VWZWMJR
<urn:uuid:5cb0479f-e269-4485-a907-868f312c3d49>
2020-02-28T22:30:36Z
54.229.126.31
text/html
sha1:IAUZJUFQLEFVJYEOWVXNMCKNJMDCPWVT
<urn:uuid:46df8396-0a41-4d0e-8fd4-231a725c84c7>
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1202&L=DC-ARCHITECTURE&D=0&P=44087
response
<urn:uuid:ec642824-0fc6-428f-b864-9137d020998d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-243.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/