after looking at the possible alternatives and thinking about what they
would mean in practice, I have now made some decisions on how to clarify
the still ambiguous points in the collection definitions, most
particularly the issue that Ulrich raised on the mapping function.
I have uploaded a new document version and a new diagram to the workspace:
The most important changes I made:
- The mapping function was defined to map to "item metadata elements and
collection membership metadata", which was ambiguous (is this a union?
or a cross-product? ..?). I removed the collection membership metadata
ability from this definition. I think I originally put it there to
indicate that collection items can relate to other collections; but this
is already covered if one understands this within scope of the item
metadata. This solves the point Ulrich raised. I think. :-)
- I removed collection capabilities from metadata and included them as
an essential part of the collection (together with collection membership
and state). The capabilities are becoming to me a key element and
perhaps one innovative part of what we are doing (thanks to Bridget,
who, I think brought up the term and notion). I would like to see that
reflected by raising them to the top level.
- I restructured the diagram and changed color for some things to
indicate the metadata parts.
- I cleaned up some old leftover comments.
We can use tomorrow's call to discuss this and see whether there are
more issues/ambiguities left to clean up. I can already see that we may
also need to define the item/member metadata at some point.
Dr. Tobias Weigel
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH (DKRZ)
Bundesstraße 45 a • 20146 Hamburg • Germany
Phone: +49 40 460094-104
Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Thomas Ludwig
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 39784
Collection definitions and the mapping function
You are here