Group Mailing list Archive

19 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Dear Jeremy, Jeff, Gary,
You are right, that the purpose of the collection definition of the
collection WG is to set a minimum bar to get as much specificity as
necessary in order to outline an API at the end, that is able to handle
specific queries on collections.
The question whether DOs might be identified by a formal ID, or by a
query, or by some other method, is currently not really solved in this
context, and the idea to construct a collection by some function is
rather new in the collection WG.

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

If I am following correctly (and please disregard if not) a key question to
formulating the definition is how digital objects are identified (and
whether they have to be). That is, they might be identified by a formal ID,
or by a query, or by some other method (including that someone might say a
collection of bits--which themselves might have no identifying features,
though they could collectively be described--make up the collection or
entity they are interested in understanding as a collected whole).

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Keith,
In short I think the answer is yes, that collections such as generated by
queries can be parts of DO collections.
I would go back to Reagan Moore's early observation (to effect if I
understand right) that " "Digital collections implement arrangement by a
community for organizing their digital entities.."
They are then aggregations of interest defined by communities.
Now this ultra flexibility may, I have a sense of worry without having
figured this out, overload the role of digital object since it seems to

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

I suppose my counter question is: Is a part of a digital object a digital
object itself?
If yes, then yes. If not...what would the use case be for collecting it?
Also of possible interest, the W3C's Web Annotation working group has a
method for turning any segment of web resource into a distinct web
resource. That approach to defining identity for segments of objects might
be applicable here.
Regards,
Jacob
_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Can a collection be parts of digitsl objects? I am thinking of a collection of cited datasrts where the part of each dataset cited is defined by a query
See the RFA group om citation best. K
Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
---- Gary Berg-Cross wrote ----
I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't gotten as far.
Can a collection be parts of digitsl objects? I am thinking of a collection of cited datasrts where the part of each dataset cited is defined by a query
See the RFA group om citation best. K

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't
gotten as far.
>Rather than define the collection as multiple sets (one of identifiers,
one of links, and one of metadata), why not just define it as a set of
digital objects (each of which has an identifier, some link pointing to it,
I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't
gotten as far.
>Rather than define the collection as multiple sets (one of identifiers,
one of links, and one of metadata), why not just define it as a set of

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

This looks like a promising definition but I see some things that may cause
confusion.
Rather than define the collection as multiple sets (one of identifiers, one
of links, and one of metadata), why not just define it as a set of digital
objects (each of which has an identifier, some link pointing to it, and
some descriptive metadata). I might add some caveat like "at a particular
point in time" so that there is enough flexibility to admit that
collections tend to change over time.
Regards,
Jacob

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Dear all,
since this discussion gets a bit less agile in the last days, it is
perhaps a good point in time to reflect the outcome of this discussion
in the definition I proposed.
I think we identified the mayor problems in this preliminary definition.
The suggestion I give to avoids these problems essentially goes along
the lines, Jakob made some Emails earlier (12.4.):
"... A better definition might be: A collection is a digital object
which consists of a set or a list and is named by a PID (which when

12 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda...

Reagan
Thanks again. Some of these points are pithy enough to place is some
explanations of the definitions such as PID resolution.
It will be interesting to see if you and Jacob, for example, can converge
on wording for this operational view of label/identifier actions.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​

*http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
*
Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees

12 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabri...

Hi Gary,
Hi Gary,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Gary <***@***.***> wrote:
>
> They are, I would say, of the same KIND. But there are differences in
> practice.
>
>
Yes, this is my understanding. Or more specifically an identifier is a kind
of name (which itself is a kind of label).
Hi Gary,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Gary <***@***.***> wrote:
>
> They are, I would say, of the same KIND. But there are differences in
> practice.
>
>

Pages