> Minutes20050822

• FrontPage
• RecentChanges
• FindPage
• HelpContents

• Edit
• View
• Diffs
• Info
• Subscribe
• Raw
• Print

• AttachFile
• DSP2XML
• DeletePage
• LikePages
• LocalSiteMap
• SpellCheck

DCMI RDF Taskforce Meeting Minutes

Date/time/place

Time: 14.00pm (UK), 15.00pm (Germany/Sweden)

Place: conference call

Group: DCRDFTaskforce

Agenda

1. Short term - a DCMI Note clarifying the current situation

2. Longer term - a new DC in RDF DCMI Recommendation

document structure use of new term URIs or not mapping specific features of the DCAM to RDF

3. What do we want to have on the table by the time we meet in Madrid

Yes . but needs lot of extra clarification. Need historical context . that strings vs. thing distinction was not made clear. Needs to state that either current instance metadata is wrong . or DCMI definitions of properties are wrong (or that they were interpreted wrongly). Additional semantic layer (OWL, etc.) has made this much more important.

If so, as an appendix to the DCAM or as a separate DCMI Note?

Issue as DCMI note

Need to be clear about our notion of clarification . what do we mean? Clarifying other two docs relationship with DCAM? Clarifying the problem? Need to acknowledge that space is changing and that current documents contradict each other. Needs a political statement . main body (see above)... technical details as appendix. Flag that figure 1 is outcome of DCMI Recommendation . consider future options for linking from the Rec to the Note.

What can we say at the end about transforming between the two constructs?

Figure 2 cannot be transformed into figure 1. Figure 1 can be transformed into figure 2 . but the result is that the blank node is of type rdfs:Literal so isn't very useful! Could add figure 3 (explicitly typed node) Cannot transform from figure 3 to figure 1. Transform from figure 3 to figure 2 is OK

Current draft in Wiki is a reasonable start. Add section about dumb-down. Need a property by property analysis of domains and ranges . but outcomes of that work don.t necessarily go into the new 'DC in RDF' recommendation. Probably requires explicit documentation about domains and ranges in new term proposals. Needs to be documented in the DC Terms document (or at least in a separate document).

Other stuff

Good to have revised drafts of documents on the table by Madrid AP needs to arrange f2f meeting during the conference in Madrid (subsequently set for second part of DC Arch WG slot on the Monday) Agreed to have a follow-up conference call before the meeting in Madrid (see below)