LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


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

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  November 2008

CODE4LIB November 2008

Subject:

Re: [Fwd: Fwd: [DC-GENERAL] DCMI News 3 November 2008]

From:

"Stephens, Owen" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:55:39 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (175 lines)

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!)

There are parts of this that I definitely think would be beneficial for
library data. Specifically the analysis of metadata against schemes that
already exist, and the development of a Description Set Profile (in a
machine readable format).

I would question what the benefit of doing a full DCAP is as opposed to
doing the bits that are clearly of practical value. Although I buy the
argument that it they promote sharing/linking of data in theory, I
haven't seen any real-world examples of this - has SWAP had more of an
impact because there is a DCAP for it? If we were starting from scratch
a DCAP would be (at least) as good a way as any other of capturing stuff
like functional requirements and Usage Guidelines - but since these
don't actually add to the functionality of the metadata scheme you end
up with as far as I can see, where we already have this stuff in other
forms (as suggested in the Usage Guidelines) then what would be the
tangible benefits of restating for a DCAP? (I suppose the flip side of
this is - would it be much work to do so?)

Touching on the Usage Guidelines - I'd question whether the example
given of AACR2 as an existing set of usage guidelines which you could
refer to in the DCAP is completely accurate? Doesn't AACR2 hold a
mixture of things that are usage guidelines, and things that would live
in the DSP? If this is so, it may be worth being explicit about this to
avoid misunderstandings.

Further on the Usage Guidelines, one of the examples of a possible
guideline is " For works of multiple authorship, the order of authors
and how many to include (e.g. first 3, or no more than 20)". I'm not
clear why you would express 'no more than 20' here, rather than as part
of the relevant Description Template in the DSP?

In terms of the library world, a question that occurs is that if we went
down this route, would we find that we ended up with a single DCAP for
libraries? As I think about it I wonder if we would find multiple DCAPs
were required - perhaps Public Libraries would have a different DCAP to
Research Libraries. Possibly more likely different types of collections
would require different DCAPs. For example, it seems likely to me that
the Functional Requirements for a rare books collection is different to
that of the DVD collection. Further, it seems likely to me that the
requirements for the DVD collection in my local public library is
different to that of the DVD collection at my local media-arts college.

If this is the case, what are the implications of mixing DCAPs within or
across libraries? How would different DCAPs work together? What would be
the implications for sharing records? Am I looking for problems here, or
anticipating real issues? (I did read the document on Interoperability,
but not sure I understand what it is getting at yet - however, I'm not
sure it really is about this kind of interoperability?)

Finally, it looks to me like RDA would benefit immensely from being
expressed as a DSP plus usage guidelines...

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: [log in to unmask]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of
> Karen Coyle
> Sent: 04 November 2008 13:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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/webadmin?A0=dc-architecture >
> DC-ARCHITECTURE mailing list, including "[Public Comment]" in the
> subject
> line.
> 
> Thank you!
> kc
> 
> 
> -
> --  ---
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 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
October 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
December 2013
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
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 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
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 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
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager