8 | | * Should //Continent// and //Country// be merged to one (new) facet //Spacial Coverage//? |
9 | | * How should //License// be filled? --> First implementation available under: http://aspra11.informatik.uni-leipzig.de:8080/vlo/search?1 |
10 | | * Introduce a new facet //Speaker//? --> Hanna and Peter will provide a proposal. |
| 8 | * '''Agreement:''' facet definitions as proposed by Hanna will be integrated in the VLO (via [wiki:keeloo Kees Jan]) e.g. by means of tooltips |
| 9 | * '''still open discussion:''' Should //Continent// and //Country// be merged to one (new) facet //Spacial Coverage//? |
| 10 | * How should //License// be filled? A first implementation is available at http://aspra11.informatik.uni-leipzig.de:8080/vlo/search?1 The data appears to be very heterogeneous (license names, links to license texts, complete licence texts, general remarks such as "freely available"). For a search facet //Licence Name// seems more appropriate. This needs more discussion based on the analysis of the preview implementation. |
| 11 | * Introduce a new display facet //Speaker//? '''Task:''' Hanna and Peter will provide a proposal. |
| 12 | * '''Agreement:''' We will '''not''' propose a new search facet for annotation layers as this is a highly specialized feature of certain types of resources (e.g. corpora) only. |
14 | | * Different relations should be provided within the components part of CMDI metadata records. |
15 | | * The VLO-WG will provide recommendations for the handling of relations including: |
16 | | * a set of CMDI components (grouped together into one surrounding component) for different relations, |
17 | | * a list of recommended ISOcat-DCs for specific relations. |
| 16 | * There is no ''general'' account for representing relations in the CMDI header. Therefore special relations should be provided within the components part of CMDI metadata records. |
| 17 | * '''Proposal''' (as best-practice:) within the CMDI header only part-whole-relations (i.e. constituency) should be include (//ResourceProxy//, thus spanning acyclic graphs). These are of primary importance for the VLO wrt: |
| 18 | * navigation |
| 19 | * sorting |
| 20 | * granularity issues (locating complete collections as opposed to single files of a corpus) |
| 21 | * versioning (This can be modeled as a special case of constituency if we opt for "abstract" resources (as metadata only) that comprise all actual versions (either as "real" resources or metadata in case of complex resources such as corpora)) |
| 22 | * (These relations can also be directly mapped onto common Fedora installations.) |
| 23 | * The VLO-WG will provide recommendations for the handling of all remaining relations via CMDI components: |
| 24 | * an example set of CMDI components (maybe grouped together into one surrounding component) for different relations, |
| 25 | * a list of recommended ISOcat-DCs for specific relation types. |
| 26 | * Keeping relations in components ensures flexible adaptations to new relation types. When relations are expressed via the CMDI header, adding a new relation type implies a new version of CMDI. |