------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 23:06:40 +0100 From: Andy Powell Subject: Re: Edits to the type vocabulary ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, 2 May 2005, Stuart Sutton wrote: > All, some time back, Diane and I were charged with doing minor edits of the > type vocabulary. My recollection was that we were to move best practice > information etc. from the description to the comments. We did a first stab > at those edits and the UB reviewed them. It was the sense of the UB that > there were additional edits needing doing. Unfortunately, so much time has > past that I cannot for the life of me figure out (or find information) > regarding these additional edits. I have attached an HTML page here with > the edits as they now stand. Can anyone jog my memory regarding what > remains to be done? I don't remember either I'm afraid. Looking at your edited version now, I have the following comments. I think that the comment for software is completely broken Label: Software Definition: A computer program in source or compiled form which may be available for installation non-transiently on another machine. Comment: For software which exists only to create an interactive environment, use interactive instead. The last sentence should at least say 'Interactive Resource'. But the more fundamental problem is that the comment mixes up descriptions of the 'software' from descriptions of the 'thing created by running the software', i.e. the 'interactive resource'. In some situations it'll be appropriate to describe one, in other situations it'll be approapriate to describe the other - but you can't simply recommend to use one of these in favour of the other - since they are different resources! In the comment for Collection Label: Collection Definition: An aggregation of items. Comment: The term collection means that the resource is described as a group; its parts may be separately described and navigated. it might be helpful to say "its parts may *also* be separately described and navigated"? The comment for Event is very odd. An Event is *never* retreivable! And why does this comment talk about the other metadata about the event - none of the other comments do this. The definition for Sound seems to mix up work and manifestation (or reality and representation, or something) - i.e. a 'sound' and a 'sound file'. The definition sounds like the latter, but I suspect the former is also intended?? Label: Sound Definition: A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Comment: For example - a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds. Can I use DC to describe birdsong? Or can I only use it to describe a recording of birdsong? If the Sound type only applies to the latter (which is what the definition sounds like it means) then what is the type of the former? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 06:29:21 -0700 From: Stuart Sutton Subject: Re: Edits to the type vocabulary ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks, Andy. I'm not quite sure how to approach your comments in the course of these edits. Several go to the heart of terms semantics. It was my understanding that what Diane and I were changed to do was rather ministerial in terms of moving text more appropriate to the comments from the current descriptions and to make the texts more consistent. In doing the first round, we tried to be as loyal to the current semantics as we could. Your points are well made; but I guess I am not sure whether Diane and I should go off re-crafting semantics. Perhaps there might be a moment on tomorrow's call to clarify the charge in light of your comments...or to postpone discussion until D.C. in a few weeks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Andy Powell Subject: Re: Edits to the type vocabulary ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Wed, 4 May 2005, Stuart Sutton wrote: > Thanks, Andy. I'm not quite sure how to approach your comments in the > course of these edits. Several go to the heart of terms semantics. It was > my understanding that what Diane and I were changed to do was rather > ministerial in terms of moving text more appropriate to the comments from > the current descriptions and to make the texts more consistent. In doing > the first round, we tried to be as loyal to the current semantics as we > could. Your points are well made; but I guess I am not sure whether Diane > and I should go off re-crafting semantics. Agreed. Fair point. But I think that my comments about Software, Collection and Event fall into the non-semantic category? The only really contentious comment (of mine) is the one about sound??