Changes between Version 27 and Version 28 of VLO-Taskforce/Relations

Timestamp:

01/23/14 19:59:45 (10 years ago)

Author:

herold

Comment:

--

VLO-Taskforce/Relations

@@ -4 +4 @@
 * [[attachment:VLO_facets.pdf|List of facets with ISO-CAT info (incomplete)]]
 * [[attachment:VLO_Tischvorlage_2014-01-07.pdf|Summary of VLO metadata quality issues and curation plans]] 
+
+== Exploiting ISOcat data categories ==
+
+Currently (January 2014) the VLO relies on two separate strategies for MD selection to populate its facets:
+
+1. ISOcat DCs associated with a MD field in the underlying CMDI profile
+2. a set of centre specific XPaths for CMDI instances to
+ * explicitly select MD fields for inclusion in a facet that was not matched by a ISOcat DC (white list)
+ * explicitly discard MD fields that were selected via their ISOcat DC (black list)
+
+Ideally, strategy 1 should suffice for proper MD selection for the facets. To fix the current state of the MD instances and the VLO we will have to answer the questions:
+
+1. Does VLO rely on appropriate, i.e. sufficiently concrete defined ISOcat DCs? Obviously DCs like http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2482 (language ID) or http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2484 (language name) are semantically too vague and don't allow for the differentiation between the language a resource is written in or the language of an actor in case of transcribed recordings and so on.
+ * Solution: Only use narrowly defined DCs for VLO facets.
+2. Do CMDI profiles use sufficiently concrete ISOcat DCs?
+ * Task: Create an overview of the DCs actually used by the centres.
+ * Task: Evaluate the whitelist/blackclist XPaths with respect to why they are needed (to select vaguely defined DCs? to select MD fields that don't have a DC associated? anything else?)
+ * Task: Propose the adoption of container DCs for profiles that rely on vaguely defined DCs 
 
 == Relationships ==