innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DCMI Architecture Group [mailto:DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK]
On Behalf Of Andy Powell
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:21 PM
To: DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [DC-ARCHITECTURE] FW: Domains and ranges of DC properties

This topic was discussed briefly at the f2f meeting in Madrid - and has
trundled on slowly behind the scenes since then, as part of the DC-RDF
Taskforce activity.

The proposed list of domain and range classes are in the DC-Architecture
wiki at

http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCPropertyDomainsRanges

Given that this discussion is largely about semantics, we agreed at
todays Usage Board teleconf, that discussion about this list would move
into the remit of the UB. However, that doesn't mean that we aren't
interested in people's views. So, if you have comments on the above
document, please share them here.

(As an aside, we're going to attempt to bring back DC-RDF Taskforce
discussion onto the main list - since the current use of a sub-list
seems to have fragmented some our conversations!).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:53:26 +0100
From: Ann Apps <ann.apps@MANCHESTER.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Manchester
Subject: Re: FW: Domains and ranges of DC properties
To: DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Andy, and All,

A few comments after a very quick scan of this list.

Location: Is this just physical and geographic locations? If so maybe it sh
ould be more explicit, ie define 'place'. Or does is include machine/intern
et location?

RightsStatement: I think one may also want to make a rights statement about
 a Service. But Service is defined as being of Agent class (which I have so
me reservations about), and so outside the scope of a rightsStatement. 

Topic: I think 'subject' also needs defining. I assume it means 'keyword' o
r classification as in dc:subject. But the word 'subject' has other meaning
s, eg the 'subject' of a sentence, or a 'subject of the Queen'.

I assume that 'DigitalResource' can include Service, and that 'PhysicalReso
urce' includes Person - the definitions seem to allow that. So I could have
 a Collection of Services or a Collection of Persons.

Being really picky - can an animal be an Agent? Or does Agent imply some in
telligence or resource creation?

Should the list include 'event'? Or is that covered by ConceptualResource?

And a 'Class' is the 'class of all classes'... Right...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:33:31 +0100
Sender: DCMI Architecture Group <DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
From: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@UKOLN.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: FW: Domains and ranges of DC properties
To: DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Ann Apps wrote:

> Topic: I think 'subject' also needs defining. I assume it
> means 'keyword' or classification as in dc:subject. But the
> word 'subject' has other meanings, eg the 'subject' of a
> sentence, or a 'subject of the Queen'.

I guess I find the "Topic" class a bit problematic too. What is a 
"Topic"? I can understand the notion of a relationship/property 
capturing the notion that resource:y is a topic of resource:x

resource:x has-topic resource:y

That's what the dc:subject property does. But I'm not really clear what 
the class of "Topics" is - apart from the class of things which might be 
values of dc:subject! Is a Topic a "Conceptual Resource"? Or is the 
Topic class broader?

What _is_ the range of dc:subject? Can a person be the value of 
dc:subject? A place? An event? Certainly I can have a book which has as 
its topic Che Guevara (person) or the Sierra Maestra (place) or the 
Cuban Revolution (event). If all these things can be values for 
dc:subject, I think a resource of any type can be a value of dc:subject, 
and the range of dc:subject is just the class Resource.

If on the other hand we are saying that the value of dc:subject is 
always a "conceptual resource" - so in my examples above the values 
would be "the concept of the person Che Guevara", "the concept of the 
place the Sierra Maestra", "the concept of the event the Cuban 
Revolution", rather than the person/place/event. There may be a 
person/place/event related to the concept, but they are distinct 
resources. That would be a consistent approach too, I think (even if I 
find it somewhat slippery at times).

I think, the introduction of the "Topic" class is suggesting the latter 
approach, but I'm not sure, and I think it needs clarification. And if 
it is the case then I think maybe the range of dc:subject is just the 
class of Conceptual Resources, not some separate class of Topics.

> And a 'Class' is the 'class of all classes'... Right...

Those phrases are all intended to be descriptions/definitions of 
classes, so it's not saying 'a Class is....'. Rather, it's saying 'the 
class labelled "Class" (in practice it would have a URI) is'.... i.e. 
that class is the class of all classes, or the class of resources which 
are classes. It does make sense, I think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:12:47 -0000
From: Andy Powell <andy.powell@EDUSERV.ORG.UK>
Subject: Domains and ranges
To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK

As discussed in today's call, I've re-worked the list of domains and
ranges to remove the use of the FRBR-like Item, Work and Manifestation.

Instead, I just use Resource, PhysicalResource and DigitalResource.
(Yes, the definitions of the latter two need some work!).

I suspect that I mainly added the FRBR stuff to cope with the use of
'item' in the 'collection description' properties. As redefined, you
can't have a collection of concepts or a collection of people, only a
collection of PhysicalResources or a collection of DigitalResources.

I think that is probably what is inteded by the DC-CD WG, but I might be
wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:42:26 +0000
From: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@UKOLN.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Domains and ranges
To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Andy Powell wrote:

> I suspect that I mainly added the FRBR stuff to cope with the use of
> 'item' in the 'collection description' properties. As redefined, you
> can't have a collection of concepts or a collection of people, only a
> collection of PhysicalResources or a collection of DigitalResources.
> 
> I think that is probably what is inteded by the DC-CD WG, but I might be
> wrong.

It was what I intended, based on what Mike Heaney says

====
Collection: An aggregation of physical and/or electronic Items.
====

and

====
Item: The concrete (incorporating physical and electronic) realisation
of Content.
Note: In so far as this analysis is concerned with collections, the
entities Content and Item will be considered only to the extent that
their types and attributes impinge upon Collection Description. In the
vast majority of cases, too, the Items will coincide with what FRBR
calls Items, not Manifestations. 'Item' has been chosen as the most
neutral term in preference to other terms which have been used such as
'Document' or 'Document-like Object'. 'Item' can most easily embrace all
of the concepts of physical and electronic, text and non-text, and human
and natural creations.
====

And I argued, therefore, that an aggregation of events (definitely) and 
an aggregation of services (probably) were not collections as defined by 
Heaney and were out of scope for the DC CD AP, and such classes should 
not be part of the collection type vocabulary.

Others in the DC CD WG argued against that - I think really just on the 
basis of "intuitive" notions of "collection" and/or on the basis that if 
we were basing our collection classes on the DCMI Type list then we had 
to take the whole list, rather than on a reading of Heaney - and (in a 
moment of weakness) I caved in to the tyranny of democracy.

Though I have continued to think they were wrong and I should have stood 
my ground, so I may go back and fight that out again in the WG ;-)

[1] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0411&L=dc-collections&P=172
[2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0412&L=dc-collections&P=60

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:55:22 +0000
From: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@UKOLN.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Domains and ranges
To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Andy Powell wrote:
> I suspect that I mainly added the FRBR stuff to cope with the use of
> 'item' in the 'collection description' properties. As redefined, you
> can't have a collection of concepts or a collection of people, only a
> collection of PhysicalResources or a collection of DigitalResources.

This also raises the interesting question of whether the new class 
describes/defined in

http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCPropertyDomainsRanges

as

Collection: The class of everything that is an aggregation of one or 
more DigitalResources or PhysicalResources.

is the same as the existing class dcmitype:Collection ("A collection is 
an aggregation of items. The term collection means that the resource is 
described as a group; its parts may be separately described and navigated")

Or whether this new class is in fact a subclass of dcmitype:Collection. 
I don't know the answer: it all depends on the definition of "item" in 
the description/definition of dcmitype:Collection. ;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-03-23 Discussion on Usage Board telecon

   Diane: in looking through possible classes, I see that 3 out of
   4 use FRBR -- I was trying to see where these were assigned.
   Andy: I thought all these classes were used somewhere but
   need to check. Some may only be used in definitions of other
   classes - so not directly assigned. For example, "work" is
   there in order to define "manifestation". Need to double-check
   which classes are actually used. -- check to make sure there
   are no "hanging classes" that do not get used anywhere.

   Diane: Problems arise with FRBR expressions: often,
   "manifestations" relate to expressions, not necessarily to
   works. Eg, translation as an expression. Manifestation of
   that translation skips a level in terms of FRBR. Difficult
   to always distinguish btw manifestation and an Item; things
   can be both Manifestation and Item in the digital context.
   Most work on FRBR has come from a library context. Joe: in
   the archival community, everything is a "copy". Resources --
   digital resources and physical resources -- but we do not
   necessarily need to talk about items and manifestations.
   What are the consequences about being explicit about domains
   and ranges? Diane: good to discuss but agree with Tom -- one
   step at a time. Andy: the minimal aim - if we cannot agree
   on actual classes - is to decide where this document is going.