[Application-profiles-ig] Our element definitions

Thu Mar 19 16:05:50 GMT 2020

Tom The ambiguity is in the term 'cardinality' and the context in which it is used. The IFLA LRM says "Cardinality specifies the number of instances of the domain and range entities that may be connected by the specific relationship" and presents it as '1 to M', etc. Attribute properties are not given a cardinality, presumably because the default is every attribute is optional and repeatable. The CIDOC CRM uses the term 'property quantifiers' and presents 'one to many' as (0,n:0,1). The beta RDA Toolkit uses 'cardinality restrictions' and presents them as verbal phrases such as 'at least one ... a minimum number of 1 and a maximum number is not specified'. This is tied in with RDA application profiles. In 'pair' notation, we have: LRM: "1:M" CRM: "0,n:0,1" RDA: "1:null" I know that these don't mean quite the same thing, but what about 'simple' users? Much more advanced question, and probably out of scope: How important is it to check the cardinality specified in a profile with what is specified in the source vocabulary? Simpler: is it a problem if the minimum occurrence in a profile is less than the minimum occurrence in the source ontology of an element/property? If the answer is yes, is there a syntax for interoperability, for matching cardinality numbers by machine? Cheers Gordon Gordon Dunsire RDA Technical Team Liaison Officer On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Phil Barker <phil.barker at pjjk.co.uk> wrote: >PS: Apologies that I am not making a suggestion for a better definition.>That's because I am not 100% sure what type of entity would be listed in>column one, nor do I have a good idea for defining it. I'm hoping that>through discussion we'll find clarification and inspiration.>>Phil>>>On 19/03/2020 14:12, Thomas Baker wrote:>>On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:33:51AM +0000, Phil Barker wrote:>>However, I'm wondering if we should distinguish>underlying concepts:>>Entity - a resource being described>>I would like to push for this definition to be made more specific to>the type of resources being described in an application profile, to>试着表达困难级别的“meta-ness”. Everything hangs>on this term, and yet this definition seems to me to boil down to>"Something - the thing".>>I'm not sure I see the difficulty. Is the following any better?>>Entity - something described in metadata>>My difficulty is that I meet that definition. Would I be a suitable entry>in column one?>>Phil>>-->>Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>.http://people.pjjk.net/phil>CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for>innovation in education technology.>PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning;>information systems for education.>>CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in>England number OC399090>PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,>number SC569282.>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.www.voudr.com/pipermail/application-profiles-ig/attachments/20200319/9dd67cd9/attachment.htm>