The meaning of Subject (and Coverage)
Dear all, Since 2006, the usage comment for the definition of dc:subject (and since 2008, dcterms:subject) has included the following sentence [1,2,3]: To describe the spatial or temporal topic of the resource, use the Coverage element. The intent was to provide guidance on when to use Coverage: The spatial or temporal topic of the resource... [5] and when to use Subject, which had a clearly overlapping definition: The topic of the resource. [6] I recently had a chat about this with Gordon, who points out -- and I'll let him elaborate -- that current notions of subject (aboutness) do not treat spatial or temporal topics separately from any other topics. In my reading of meeting notes and decision documents from the time (see Background below), the addition of the sentence quoted above to the Comment for Subject was not intended as a clarification of the formal definition of Subject, but rather as guidance about which element to use at a time when people commonly wanted to use the fifteen elements in non-overlapping ways. If this usage guideline is now unhelpful, should it be removed (after due process of course)? Tom -- Background The sentence from the Comment for Subject, quoted above, was added at the time the definition of Coverage was changed from: The extent or scope of the content of the resource. [4] to: The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant. [5] as explained in [3]. This brought the definition of Coverage very close to the definition of Subject: The topic of the resource. [6] At the time, it was widely felt that Dublin Core elements should not overlap in meaning; indeed, it was not until 2008 that Creator was declared to be a subproperty of Contributor [7]. As near as I can tell, then, the sentence quoted above was added to the usage comment for Subject in an effort to provide guidance to users about which element to use in a case where two definitions clearly overlapped. [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#subject [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject [3] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2006/2006-03.dcmes-changes.shtml [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/08/28/dcmi-terms/#coverage [5] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/12/18/dcmi-terms/#coverage [6] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/12/18/dcmi-terms/#subject [7] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2008/dcterms-changes/#sect-3 -- Tom Baker t...@tombaker.org
Re: The meaning of Subject (and Coverage)
On 24 February 2012 22:20, Thomas Baker t...@tombaker.org wrote: Dear all, Since 2006, the usage comment for the definition of dc:subject (and since 2008, dcterms:subject) has included the following sentence [1,2,3]: To describe the spatial or temporal topic of the resource, use the Coverage element. The intent was to provide guidance on when to use Coverage: The spatial or temporal topic of the resource... [5] and when to use Subject, which had a clearly overlapping definition: The topic of the resource. [6] I recently had a chat about this with Gordon, who points out -- and I'll let him elaborate -- that current notions of subject (aboutness) do not treat spatial or temporal topics separately from any other topics. In my reading of meeting notes and decision documents from the time (see Background below), the addition of the sentence quoted above to the Comment for Subject was not intended as a clarification of the formal definition of Subject, but rather as guidance about which element to use at a time when people commonly wanted to use the fifteen elements in non-overlapping ways. If this usage guideline is now unhelpful, should it be removed (after due process of course)? Is this a bit like the relationship between 'creator', 'publisher' and the more general/vague 'contributor'? Dan Tom -- Background The sentence from the Comment for Subject, quoted above, was added at the time the definition of Coverage was changed from: The extent or scope of the content of the resource. [4] to: The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant. [5] as explained in [3]. This brought the definition of Coverage very close to the definition of Subject: The topic of the resource. [6] At the time, it was widely felt that Dublin Core elements should not overlap in meaning; indeed, it was not until 2008 that Creator was declared to be a subproperty of Contributor [7]. As near as I can tell, then, the sentence quoted above was added to the usage comment for Subject in an effort to provide guidance to users about which element to use in a case where two definitions clearly overlapped. [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#subject [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject [3] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2006/2006-03.dcmes-changes.shtml [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/08/28/dcmi-terms/#coverage [5] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/12/18/dcmi-terms/#coverage [6] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/12/18/dcmi-terms/#subject [7] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2008/dcterms-changes/#sect-3 -- Tom Baker t...@tombaker.org
Re: The meaning of Subject (and Coverage)
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Baker t...@tombaker.org wrote: I recently had a chat about this with Gordon, who points out -- and I'll let him elaborate -- that current notions of subject (aboutness) do not treat spatial or temporal topics separately from any other topics. I am not sure that this is entirely correct, at least in the case of the semantics of LCSH. It is possible for a concept intentionally referring to a 4-space region to be the main subject of a work- for example a film about France. However, in other cases a topical or other concept may be sub-divided so as to cover a narrower portion of the concept occurring within or relating to a 4-space region. For example, a documentary about 20th century french films. The full semantics are somewhat more complicated, due to the syntactic structure of subdivided headings, which does not reduce to a eufaceted structure. Simon [LCSH is strictly speaking 3d+1, but it's easier to think of it in 4d terms if one wants to also address FAST]
