Group Mailing list Archive

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.
>
>

12 Apr 2016

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

Jacob,
We are essentially on the same page - maybe a different paragraph.
We agree here "saying something like 'collection == PID' (i.e., a
collection is a PID) is *weird *because the object and the identifier are *not
*the same kinds of things and don't possess the same properties and so are
fundamentally, formally not identical to one another. "
>My point is that identifiers really aren't any different than names,
labels, or what ever you call them.
They are, I would say, of the same KIND. But there are differences in

12 Apr 2016

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

Gary,
Of course, and it is our intent. We have already begun, as Ulrich and
Thomas mentioned, by working through the definitions directly within the
RDA instance of the DFT tool so that our work is visible to all as we go.
Best
Bridget

12 Apr 2016

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

Bridget et al,
It would seem that the Research Data Collections WG is the proper place for
this conversation and work advance and that you have already assembled some
of the major resources for this.
At some point you may have candidate concepts with definitions to provide
to DFT and others.
Is that OK with the WG to proceed on this?
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​

12 Apr 2016

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

Jeremy et al
Yes, your

DCMI collection reference is apt and indeed, as I recall, this effort and
projects like Europena provided some idea of aggregation as the basis for
collection. For example from the DBLIB article (Representing Cultural
Collections in Digital Aggregation and Exchange Environments
​)​
we had:
"The DCMI Metadata Terms
defines *dcterms:hasPart* as "A related resource that is included either
physically or logically in the described resource", and*dcterms:isPartOf* as

12 Apr 2016

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

Hi,
I'm one of the researchers that Jeremy contacted yesterday regarding the
definition of the *gatheredInto(x,y)* predicate. I've been reading up on
this discussion and had a question about one of the collection definitions
being maintained by the RDA. Regarding the concept of PID (persistent
identifier) has there been any true consensus on what "persistent" and
"identifier" mean? For instance, would the name Keith be a PID (why?/why
not?).
Also regarding the "precise" collection definition from the collection

Pages