Difference between revisions of "Oct. 22, 2007"

From Metadata-Registry
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 4: Line 4:
 
#*Jon is concerned that some of the more recent decisions will not be useful for us as implementers. Many of the issues are holdovers from the previous working group, with opinions split between theoreticians and practical implementers. The alternatives proposed by the theoreticians seem much more complex than the one Jon was supporting.  Much of the concern lies with the issue of accommodating existing vocabularies that are problematic in SKOS but can already be expressed in RDF.  
 
#*Jon is concerned that some of the more recent decisions will not be useful for us as implementers. Many of the issues are holdovers from the previous working group, with opinions split between theoreticians and practical implementers. The alternatives proposed by the theoreticians seem much more complex than the one Jon was supporting.  Much of the concern lies with the issue of accommodating existing vocabularies that are problematic in SKOS but can already be expressed in RDF.  
 
#*Example is when we look at a label as a term rather than a label, and we attach notes about where it comes from, these notes are as much about the term as the concept. This allows more than one person to relate a term with a concept, by allowing relationships to be "owned" and managed. Ergo, nobody owns the concepts, but the descriptions, labels, etc. can be managed as vocabularies.
 
#*Example is when we look at a label as a term rather than a label, and we attach notes about where it comes from, these notes are as much about the term as the concept. This allows more than one person to relate a term with a concept, by allowing relationships to be "owned" and managed. Ergo, nobody owns the concepts, but the descriptions, labels, etc. can be managed as vocabularies.
#*Because there's a relationship between terms and concepts, what's used when describing resources can be either, depending on whether you use URIs for the term or the concept.
+
#*Because there's a relationship between terms and concepts, what's used when describing resources can be either, depending on whether you use URIs for the term or the concept. This approach gives us more flexibility but still compliant with SKOS.
 
#Upcoming NSDL Annual Meeting
 
#Upcoming NSDL Annual Meeting
 
#DC Registry Community TF
 
#DC Registry Community TF

Revision as of 07:28, 23 October 2007

Teleconference Agenda and Notes, Oct. 23, 2007

  1. Report of Amsterdam meeting of W3C SWDWG (Jon)
    • Jon is concerned that some of the more recent decisions will not be useful for us as implementers. Many of the issues are holdovers from the previous working group, with opinions split between theoreticians and practical implementers. The alternatives proposed by the theoreticians seem much more complex than the one Jon was supporting. Much of the concern lies with the issue of accommodating existing vocabularies that are problematic in SKOS but can already be expressed in RDF.
    • Example is when we look at a label as a term rather than a label, and we attach notes about where it comes from, these notes are as much about the term as the concept. This allows more than one person to relate a term with a concept, by allowing relationships to be "owned" and managed. Ergo, nobody owns the concepts, but the descriptions, labels, etc. can be managed as vocabularies.
    • Because there's a relationship between terms and concepts, what's used when describing resources can be either, depending on whether you use URIs for the term or the concept. This approach gives us more flexibility but still compliant with SKOS.
  2. Upcoming NSDL Annual Meeting
  3. DC Registry Community TF