From churen at SINICA.EDU.TW Fri Oct 1 01:19:49 2004 From: churen at SINICA.EDU.TW (Chu-Ren Huang) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:19:49 +0800 Subject: metadata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All: I agree witih Heidi. Chu-Ren On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:44:13 -0400, Heidi Johnson wrote > Nick Thieberger wrote: > >Dear OLAC implemeenters > > >I write to ask if the metadata discusssion is ongoing or is it now closed? As we > >develop our archive we are adding to our controlled vocabularies and wonder if the > >OLAC (that is, the community) want to add these to the standards, or prefer to have > >metadata extensions for each small repository. > > >It seems to me that enhancing the OLAC standard would be preferable, so we are > >suggesting that 'song' and 'instrumental_music' be added to the datatypes. > > >We also ask that 'isTranscriptof', 'isTranscribedby' be added as attributes of the > >relation element. > > What did we decide about a revision schedule for metadata terms? Did > we decide anything? Maybe we should have something like an annual > revision protocol, whereby we discuss revisions on the list for a > month or so and then adjust the docs? Would that make sense? > > We certainly need to change the controlled vocabularies from time to > time. I remember that our goal during the workshops was to keep the > lists as short as possible, but my personal feeling is that they > should be allowed to grow as needed. 100 terms is a lot to display > on a menu, but it's not particularly troublesome to search. Archives > might not need all of them, but as a group we will surely end up > needed a largish set of, for example, genre terms. > > I've already added 'chant' to AILLA's genre keywords, even though > it's not in either OLAC or IMDI. But every second thing from > Amazonia is a chant, and all the experts agree that a chant is a > chant is a chant: it's not speech+song, or whatever. We also have > 'song', so I second Nick's amendment, and agree that we need > 'instrumental_music' as well. > > I think we were being too strict about whether a genre is linguistic > or not. In documenting endangered languages, we get all kinds of > materials that properly belong in the same corpus, although they may > not be linguistic data. instrumental music is certainly one such; > teaching materials are another. We are getting more and more of this > kind of thing (calendars, illustrated encyclopedias, primers, etc.) > at AILLA and we strongly encourage archiving and disseminating > these things broadly, because they are so useful for helping > everyone think of better ways to revitalize and support these > languages. So, we need genre terms for this stuff, too. Any ideas? > > I haven't seen any attributes of the Relation element: is there a > document for that? I would also second Nick's 'isTranscriptof', > 'isTranscribedby'. Perhaps then we would also want > 'isTranslationof', 'isAnnotationof'?? The standard companion texts, > in other words. > > I think it's worth being fully descriptive rather than strictly > parsimonious with terms. > > Just my $0.02. > > Heidi Johnson ======================================================= Chu-Ren Huang (churen at sinica.edu.tw) http://corpus.ling.sinica.edu.tw/member/churen/ Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan 115 ph. 886-2-26523108 fax. 886-2-27856622 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dih1 at CORNELL.EDU Fri Oct 1 19:27:34 2004 From: dih1 at CORNELL.EDU (Diane Hillmann) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:27:34 -0400 Subject: metadata In-Reply-To: <20041001011841.M95668@gate.sinica.edu.tw> Message-ID: Nick Thieberger wrote: > > >We also ask that 'isTranscriptof', 'isTranscribedby' be added as >attributes of the > > >relation element. Although I'm agnostic on the issue of whether "isTranscriptOf" is different enough from "isVersionOf" to be worth adding as an OLAC domain refinement, I'd like to suggest that "isTranscribedBy" is another kettle of fish. What you're really trying to do with that, I think, is describe a contributor "role" rather than a relationship in the sense of the other Relation refinements, none of which relate resources to persons, only to other resources. This business of roles is something that a lot of implementations want to do, and you'll be pleased to hear DCMI is on the verge of making an official recommendation on how to do that. The final documents are on the docket for the Usage Board meeting in Shanghai in one week, and I don't anticipate that there will be any impediments to recommendation by the board. How long it will take to get the documentation out in official form is unknown, and sad to say our record isn't very good on that, but we're trying to improve ... ;-) Just a suggestion from left field, but I know you guys aren't interested in reinventing wheels (far too much real work to do ... ). Regards, Diane Hillmann Member, DCMI Usage Board Editor, "Using Dublin Core" among other things ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From churen at SINICA.EDU.TW Fri Oct 1 01:19:49 2004 From: churen at SINICA.EDU.TW (Chu-Ren Huang) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:19:49 +0800 Subject: metadata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All: I agree witih Heidi. Chu-Ren On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:44:13 -0400, Heidi Johnson wrote > Nick Thieberger wrote: > >Dear OLAC implemeenters > > >I write to ask if the metadata discusssion is ongoing or is it now closed? As we > >develop our archive we are adding to our controlled vocabularies and wonder if the > >OLAC (that is, the community) want to add these to the standards, or prefer to have > >metadata extensions for each small repository. > > >It seems to me that enhancing the OLAC standard would be preferable, so we are > >suggesting that 'song' and 'instrumental_music' be added to the datatypes. > > >We also ask that 'isTranscriptof', 'isTranscribedby' be added as attributes of the > >relation element. > > What did we decide about a revision schedule for metadata terms? Did > we decide anything? Maybe we should have something like an annual > revision protocol, whereby we discuss revisions on the list for a > month or so and then adjust the docs? Would that make sense? > > We certainly need to change the controlled vocabularies from time to > time. I remember that our goal during the workshops was to keep the > lists as short as possible, but my personal feeling is that they > should be allowed to grow as needed. 100 terms is a lot to display > on a menu, but it's not particularly troublesome to search. Archives > might not need all of them, but as a group we will surely end up > needed a largish set of, for example, genre terms. > > I've already added 'chant' to AILLA's genre keywords, even though > it's not in either OLAC or IMDI. But every second thing from > Amazonia is a chant, and all the experts agree that a chant is a > chant is a chant: it's not speech+song, or whatever. We also have > 'song', so I second Nick's amendment, and agree that we need > 'instrumental_music' as well. > > I think we were being too strict about whether a genre is linguistic > or not. In documenting endangered languages, we get all kinds of > materials that properly belong in the same corpus, although they may > not be linguistic data. instrumental music is certainly one such; > teaching materials are another. We are getting more and more of this > kind of thing (calendars, illustrated encyclopedias, primers, etc.) > at AILLA and we strongly encourage archiving and disseminating > these things broadly, because they are so useful for helping > everyone think of better ways to revitalize and support these > languages. So, we need genre terms for this stuff, too. Any ideas? > > I haven't seen any attributes of the Relation element: is there a > document for that? I would also second Nick's 'isTranscriptof', > 'isTranscribedby'. Perhaps then we would also want > 'isTranslationof', 'isAnnotationof'?? The standard companion texts, > in other words. > > I think it's worth being fully descriptive rather than strictly > parsimonious with terms. > > Just my $0.02. > > Heidi Johnson ======================================================= Chu-Ren Huang (churen at sinica.edu.tw) http://corpus.ling.sinica.edu.tw/member/churen/ Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan 115 ph. 886-2-26523108 fax. 886-2-27856622 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dih1 at CORNELL.EDU Fri Oct 1 19:27:34 2004 From: dih1 at CORNELL.EDU (Diane Hillmann) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:27:34 -0400 Subject: metadata In-Reply-To: <20041001011841.M95668@gate.sinica.edu.tw> Message-ID: Nick Thieberger wrote: > > >We also ask that 'isTranscriptof', 'isTranscribedby' be added as >attributes of the > > >relation element. Although I'm agnostic on the issue of whether "isTranscriptOf" is different enough from "isVersionOf" to be worth adding as an OLAC domain refinement, I'd like to suggest that "isTranscribedBy" is another kettle of fish. What you're really trying to do with that, I think, is describe a contributor "role" rather than a relationship in the sense of the other Relation refinements, none of which relate resources to persons, only to other resources. This business of roles is something that a lot of implementations want to do, and you'll be pleased to hear DCMI is on the verge of making an official recommendation on how to do that. The final documents are on the docket for the Usage Board meeting in Shanghai in one week, and I don't anticipate that there will be any impediments to recommendation by the board. How long it will take to get the documentation out in official form is unknown, and sad to say our record isn't very good on that, but we're trying to improve ... ;-) Just a suggestion from left field, but I know you guys aren't interested in reinventing wheels (far too much real work to do ... ). Regards, Diane Hillmann Member, DCMI Usage Board Editor, "Using Dublin Core" among other things ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: