Group Mailing list Archive

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.
>
>

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

Pages