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  November 2004

ZNG November 2004

Subject:

Redefining dc.creator (Was: GILS Context Set)

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:07:47 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 06:43:01 -0500
> From: Eliot Christian <[log in to unmask]>
>
> A specific example occurs with "dc.creator" (and I do acknowledge
> the alias "dc.author"). Its definition in the GILS context is:
>
>    The name of the originator of the information resource.
>    Note: originator is defined as "The agent, whether person
>    or organization, responsible for all or portions of the
>    information resource."
>
> The DC context set doesn't provide a definition, but the DCMI site
> defines Creator in version 1.1 as: "An entity primarily responsible
> for making the content of the resource."
>
> In effect, I have overloaded the DC semantics to move the emphasis
> away from "Who gets the creative credit for this?" toward the sense
> of "Who stands behind this?". (I think this reflects the difference
> between an academic and information publishing orientation versus
> a legalistic and information compiling orientation.)

I see what you've done, there.  Nice example, clear exposition.

> My question is: Is such unilateral overloading permissible from the
> CQL perspective?

We've not discussed this before, so I can only offer an opinion.  The
elegantly designed but almost totally overlooked Z39.50 Attribute
Architecture got this right IMHO:
        http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/attrarch/attrarch.html
It has two attribute types, Semantic Qualifier and Functional
Qualifier, that you can use to explicitly refine the semantics of an
access point.  So, for example, the AA-compliant BIB-2 profile says
that the way to search for Author is to use the Cross Domain attribute
set's "Name" access point with the functional qualifier "Creation".

This is excellent Computer Science, but not as much fun as just typing
"author=Holtz" :-)

CQL has no concepts directly corresponding to functional qualfier and
semantic qualifier.  However, we could implement these if we wanted to
by using a relation modifier (slightly overloading the concept, but
then we do that for specifying term structure already so I won't lose
sleep over it):

        dc.creator =/gils.authorStandsBehind holtz

This is quite cute, because it means that cross-domain servers that
don't know anything about GILS can silently ignore the unrecognised
modifier and still give you a reasonable response.  (Whether that
would be a good thing for interoperability is a whole nother issue,
which I don't propose to go into here.)

So we could go that route.  The alternative is just to go ahead and do
what you're suggesting, which is to have the GILS profile specify
that, for application operating under that profile, the semantics of
dc.creator are as stated.

My feeling is that the latter is more practical and maybe even more
desirable, but I am open to be persuaded.

>>> For instance, the index named "identifier" occurs in the Record
>>> Metadata http://srw.cheshire3.org/contextSets/rec/1.1/ as "A
>>> unique local identifier for the record within the current
>>> context".  This is quite general and similar to Dublin Core, where
>>> it is defined as "An unambiguous reference to the resource within
>>> a given context."
>>
>> Aha -- not quite!  The Dublin Core identifier element is the
>> identifier of the resource you're describing, whereas the Rec set's
>> identifier is that of the record that's describing it.
>
> Understood. But, in both cases the semantics of "identifier"
> specifies that it is application is "within the current context".
> So, Rec could use "dc.identifier" rather than creating
> "rec.identifier".

No, it makes no sense to talk about one context set "using" another.
They are different context sets.  Only a profile can use a context
set.

> (And, BTW, I also need "identifier" in GILS and I don't know which
> one to use.)

It depends entirely on whether you want to identify resources (in
which case use dc.identifier) or the records that talk about them (in
which case use rec.identifier).  Or it's quite possible that you might
have legitimate uses for both of these.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Lisp is just glorified C with completely different brackets"
         -- Harvey "Max" Thompson.

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/

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