There is no such content in this group
Posts
19
April
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.0 | Add new comment
18
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
by Jeremy York
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).0 | Add new comment
18
April
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 to0 | Add new comment
18
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
by Jacob Jett
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 Assistant0 | Add new comment
18
April
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. K0 | Add new comment
18
April
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 of0 | Add new comment
18
April
2016
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
by Jacob Jett
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, Jacob0 | Add new comment
18
April
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 when0 | Add new comment
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...
by Jacob Jett
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. > >1 | Add new comment