OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Requirements oddity


Steve,

Have replied separately on the "human-readable" and posted a new example 
  in HTML that is a proposed answer based on your interpretation of 
"human-readable."

Herein, of the dc:description and need for metadata about a Published 
Subject Identifier.

Steve Pepper wrote:
> * Patrick Durusau:
>
<snip>

> | One problem I am wrestling with is how do machines discover information 
> | about Published Subject Identifiers?
> 
> Why do machines need information about the identifiers? Isn't it
> enough to *know* the identifier and have information about the
> (corresponding) subject indicator?
> 
> | If the semantics of metadata in a Published Subject Indicator were 
> | declared to be "about" the Published Subject Identifier, we could have:
> | 
> | <rdf:RDF
> |      xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
> |      xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"/>
> |     <rdf:Description
> |         rdf:about="http://psi.fruits.org/apple.html";
> |         dc:publisher="Johnny Appleseed"
> |         dc:description="Apple: Round firm fleshy fruit of a rosaceous tree"
> |         dc:type="Published Subject Indicator"
> |         dc:date="2003-09-14" />
> | </rdf:RDF>
> 
> This is fine as it is ... except that dc:description is misplaced.
> You have provided a description of the subject itself, not of the
> subject indicator (or identifier).
> 

I don't think "description of the subject itself" is quite right.

Dublin Core defines description as: "An account of the content of the 
resource."

With the comment: "Examples of Description include, but is not limited 
to: an abstract, table of contents, reference to a graphical 
representation of content or a free-text account of the content."

Appears to refer to describing the content of the Published Subject 
Indicator (in our case) which I take to be something other than the 
"subject itself." (Conceding that my use to incorporate the definition 
is also an abuse as well. To have an "account of the content" is not the 
same thing as reproducing the content.)

On the other hand, dc:type, which is defined as: "The nature or genre of 
the content of the resource." does seem to fit rather well.

> | Which not only meets all the requirements and recommendations but is 
> | also machine-processable metadata "about" the Published Subject 
> | Identifier. (Actually since we suggested consistency between 
> | human/machine metadata, we could simply say it applies to both?)
> 
> It meets the machine-readability recommendations, which are about
> metadata for the subject indicator (with the except of the
> dc:description property, as noted above).
> 
> | While it is true that topic map processors will only "match" the 
> | Published Subject Identifiers for subject identity purposes, making it 
> | easy for other software to seek out and store metadata from Published 
> | Subject Indicators "about" Published Subject Identifiers, looks like a 
> | good strategy.
> 
> I still don't understand why software needs metadata about identifiers
> rather than indicators.
> 

Hmmm, I suppose under the theory that each identifier is bound to an 
indicator (requirement for being a PSI), then it may be sufficient for 
the metadata to be "about" the indicator. It is by implication also 
about the identifier in some sense but it may not be necessary to go there.

What I was envisioning was a circumstance where I have software that 
trusts some identifiers and not others. The bare identifier, without 
more, does not give me any basis on which to distinguish those I trust 
(apart from domain name) from those I don't. Having the metadata in the 
Published Subject Indicator be "about" the identifier, I can distinguish 
(assuming required) on the basis of date, publisher, other required 
metadata? I might trust identifiers from Idealliance but only those with 
dc:creator of "Jane Harnad."

As I noted, it may be a distinction without any real difference. I could 
treat the metadata in the Published Subject Indicator as determining 
whether I trust the Published Subject Identifier.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]