I'm not sure that doing both (that is, in some circumstances adding both a
coverage and about statement with the same triple subject and object)
resolves the problem, as we would need to be able to identify those
circumstances - and this requires the same level of definition clarity as
for
I was thinking, as Karen suggests, that an AP would specify, say, that the
range of dct:subject and similar properties is the VES GeoNames. An AP
for a museum community might specify AAT as the VES; another AP might
specify the VES as a union of GeoNames and AAT. Interoperability and
inter-KOS
I know you guys have been discussing it, but I still don't understand
why a secondary/qualifying subject needs a completely different
vocabulary term? If it's still aboutness, that seems like it should
be the same term. I mean, sometimes in LCSH there's a third or fourth
level of additional
Hi Diane,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:22:10AM -0500, Diane Hillmann wrote:
It was these folks who developed the DCMI Box and
DCMI Point methods for encoding that info in text strings within Coverage.
This was a while ago, and DC no longer supports those strategies...
Sorry if I've missed something in this thread, but I believe dc:coverage is at
least in part a contribution from the archives and records management fields to
DCMES. That is, a treaty or contract of sale or any other record could cover
something (e.g., Vancouver, BC from now 'til 2020) and not
Between Barbara's reply and Joe's it sounds like dc:coverage should be
expressly NOT topical. Now I'm REALLY confused about what it's supposed
to be.
kc
On 2/27/12 5:52 AM, Joseph Tennis wrote:
Sorry if I've missed something in this thread, but I believe
dc:coverage is at least in part a
I'm not sure who is channeling who here, but this is now the 2nd time
that Simon and I have given approximately the same replies, and if it
happens again it'll be creepy. :-)
kc
On 2/27/12 12:12 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, gor...@gordondunsire.com
I'm not sure who I'm replying to here, but I'd like to add a few use cases
here (informally, of course). As a former law librarian, the notion of
geographic 'coverage' that isn't explicitly of a subject nature is pretty
common. Jurisdiction is one such thing, and the kinds of laws that get
passed
On 2/24/12 6:38 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
To be clear, the definition of dc:subject would remain unchanged: The topic of
the resource. No definitions would change. The change I am proposing is that
the usage guideline -- that Coverage be used instead of Subject to describe the
spatial or
All
My first point when discussing this with Tom was that there seems to be an
inconsistency in the way dct:coverage is defined.
dct:coverage and its sub-properties dct:spatial and dct:temporal include
the subject aspect of their semantic in the definition. But this is not the
case with any
Gordon, this now makes sense, thanks.
I agree that it makes sense for all subjects to be under subject -- it
also makes sense to me to have subject types as sub-properties of
dc:subject. How far to go down that road is another question.
I'm still confused, though, about the desired scope of
Folks:
As I recall, the change in the definition of 'Coverage' to include
topicality occurred while I was still on the UB, and I'd like to think I
spoke against it (though I have no evidence for that, just memory, faulty
at best). Tom, who probably has to hand all the minutes of those meetings
Thanks, Diane, for the history. It's always hard to understand without
the subtext of *how* things have come about.
I have no strong interest one way or the other about a solution. But I
am curious to know what usage of dc:coverage you prefer that would
return to the
previous definition (or
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
