There is no such content in this group
Posts
12
April
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 Trustees0 | Add new comment
12
April
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, it’s great to see so much activity and I’ve tried to follow all the arguments going on here. I will base my responses on a list of points I have extracted from the discussion so far (https://rd-alliance.org/group/research-data-collections-wg/wiki/mailing-... ). I hope I got everything somewhat right and complete, apologies if I missed or misstated anyone's opinion - and feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.1 | Add new comment
12
April
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 in0 | Add new comment
12
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
I have been extremely integrated by the conversation so far regarding data aggregations. I do have a few questions regarding the data though. I might have missed this part of the conversation so please bear with me. How is data licensed/policed? For example, some data might have restrictions (hippa, fisma, etc). I know it seems like a small issue and might now fall with in the scope of this conversation, but I would like to see a field specifically for data policy(ies)/licenses.0 | Add new comment
12
April
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 Bridget0 | Add new comment
12
April
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. ***@***.*** 0 | Add new comment
12
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
Dear Keith, all, dear, I had to truncate the subject line, because it got to long during our debate for the RDA list server. I think this is a really strong reminder to get settled;-) Dear Keith, all, dear, I had to truncate the subject line, because it got to long during our debate for the RDA list server. I think this is a really strong reminder to get settled;-) Am 12.04.2016 um 12:41 schrieb ***@***.***: > > Ulrich – > > >0 | Add new comment
12
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
Hi Gary, all, I agree with Thomas: this now tends to become a more and more philosophical debate - I like this, and we should continue this perhaps with a beer in Denver. But to shorten the decisions process here let me assume that an undoubted goal is to setup the foundations to build automated processes on collections and try to bring it down to a simple question: Do we want to be able to prove the correctness of processes on collections or not. If this is case, we need a mathematical solid0 | Add new comment
11
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
Dear Jeremy, all here, as far as I can see from a first look, the definition is relying on the binary predicate /isGatheredInto/(/x/,/y/), which I couldn't find to be defined at the given location anymore. So one probably cannot use this as a definition here, without defining how this predicate function works in all cases. But the other way around: if one uses my reductionist definition, the function /isGatheredInto/(/x/,/y/) is almost trivially to define, because one just looks, whether PID y is contained in the set of PIDs in0 | Add new comment
11
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
Hello Ulrich, thank you for the examples - I particularly like the power collection idea as it could solve very aesthetically some of the issues we get into once we talk about collections that grow over time but yet should be somewhat statically referable. I think this also has a new twist on the API: A rule-based collection might need its own dedicated querying and creation mechanisms (or at least different parameter sets). When thinking in terms of collection models, I mostly worked along lines of0 | Add new comment