LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  August 2004

ZNG August 2004

Subject:

Re: Context Set for GILS

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:10:31 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (87 lines)

Eliot -- A couple observations.

1. I would like to see your document cast as a profile rather than a context
set, and the context set information extracted into a separate, more concise
document focusing on the context set definition.  (I realize that existing
documents we point to as context set definitions look more like profiles,
and I'm going to make the same suggestion for those.)

The context set document wouldn't have any required/optional information,
just list the indexes (etc.) that are defined by the gils context set.  A
context set definition shouldn't prescribe that a value is mandatory or
optional. That's for a profile. It also shouldn't list any of the other
indexes (etc.) -- cql, rec, dc -- not in the definition tables anyway. (It's
fine to explain how the gils values might be used in conjunction with dc or
cql values as examples or in an explanatory column, but it appears at first
glance that these values are being defined by this document, which they're
not.)


2.  In view of this effort and recent related discussions (including our
brief phone conversation a few days ago, Rob's comments, the  discussion of
metadata vs. data) I hope we will continue thinking about how we might
qualify indexes in cql.  Rob suggested an indicator of "metadataness";  I
think we should develop something more general that would serve also as a
combination functional/semantic qualifier, possibly allowing us to avoid
defining multiple similar indexes, as for example gils distributorCountry
and contactCountry.

I don't want to open up a Z39.50/attribute architecture bag of worms, nor am
I suggesting that those aren't separate indexes in real life. But we did go
to some length in the attribute architecture work to address this and I
wonder if it would be worthwhile to think about a solution based in part on
that work.

Personally I think we spent an inordinate amount of time and energy (in the
Z39.50 attribute architecture work), while crafting the semantic qualifier,
trying to articulate the distinction between a semantic and functional
qualifier. That's part of the reason it never caught on, in my view.

But if "county" is common to many applications, and "distributor" is more or
less specific to GILS, doesn't it seem like we should be able to qualify
"country" by "distributor", with "country" defined in a general context and
"distributor" defined by the GILS context?  I don't know what to call such a
modifier (semantic, functional,...) and I'm not real comfortable with
casting it as a relation modifier (it really should be an "index modifier"
but we don't have those, so perhaps such a thing could wait for the next
version, and meawhile for 1.1 use relation modifier).   Couldn't
dc.description be modified by gils.resource to refer to gils
resourceDescription?  Could date be qualified by "beginning" or "ending" and
further qualified by gils.resource?

Rob also alluded to the possibility of a cross domain (or utility) set.  I
think we once discussed defining a utility context set, but I don't remember
what came of that discussion.  I think we should pursue it.

Don't take any of this as concrete suggestions, just something to think
about.

--Ray

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eliot Christian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 6:26 PM
Subject: Context Set for GILS


> My attempt to make a context set document for the treatment
> of GILS in CQL is at http://www.gils.net/context-set.html .
>
> Cases of multiple index names with the same semantics
> (e.g., author, creator, originator), are shown in the same
> row to have these treated as exact aliases.
>
> Also, you may notice a couple of new elements that are emerging
> from the Categorization of Government Information work under
> the E-Government Act.
>
> Please do let me know whatever I have gotten wrong!
>
> (Please respond to my normal e-mail [log in to unmask] or
> to [log in to unmask] )
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager