-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
SyncWiki-SignificantProperties.txt
88 lines (72 loc) · 3.3 KB
/
SyncWiki-SignificantProperties.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
# What Should DOPWG Do? #
I think that the DOPWG could attempt to build a common
understanding roughly as follows:
- Pool the definitions of 'types' and 'intellectual properties'
that have been generated by previous TB deliverables and other
projects outside Planets.
- [
http://www.planets-project.eu/private/pages/wiki/index.php/List_of_Digital_Object_Types_and_their_Associated_Properties][1]
- [http://www.significantproperties.org.uk/][2]
- And many more, I assume.
- Choose a single use-case, and focus on what we really need for
that.
- e.g. I want to use the Testbed to explore ways of preserving X,
where X is a set of real files we have access to.
- Consider the options for X, and choose one or two preservation
actions.
- Discuss what the 'intellectual properties' related to this
use-case actually mean.
- Turn them into repeatably measurable properties, by checking
that we all agree on what the property definition means and
implies.
- e.g. Does 'preserve the paragraphs' mean 'preserve the way the
paragraphs looks' or 'preserve the paragraphs as semantic
entities'.
- e.g. if we want to 'preserve the way the paragraphs looks', do
we need to decide more precisely what this means?
- Consider whether these properties refer to the comparison
between digital objects, or to something that can be extracted from
digital objects.
- If and when agreement is reached, capture these properties in
the Testbed ontology.
- Try to connect these 'intellectual' properties and types to the
XCDL notion of the properties of digital object 'types'.
- Note that TB and PC are using 'digital object type' to mean
VERY different things.
- If and when agreement is reached, capture these properties in
the Testbed ontology.
- Consider defining other properties that are related to
DOP:
- Metadata property definitions, e.g. a property that means 'this
is a valid object', a property that means 'this object has this
format'.
- e.g. how to document the context of a performance (technical
enviroment properties).
- e.g. what are the properties of preservation services that are
of interest.
EMAILED: The above has been sent around for discussion.
# Other Ideas #
- Formats are what can be shared well.
- 'Read'/'Archive' version, versus 'Edit' version.
- Lawyers are pricing themselves out of the market.
- Coping with change, innovation v. compatability.
- Do you have a copy of the source?
- How to preserve dynamic resources?
- The abstract model, the ontology, and use cases.
- Faceted properties. ** GeoTIFF? Extend 'format' property to AND
and multi as OR?
- Amsterdam group, protoge.
- LOC shared vocabularies.
- Properties: _* Properties of Format._* Properties of Instance
of the Format. _* Conservation of Properties, aggregated across
experiments._* Articles, as collections of experiments, aggregated
results, plots and text. ** Articles as pay-to-publish journal
content.** Published articles making to the public pages, and thus
Google.
[http://etherpad.com/9YjJuKNzUH][3]
TB p3, Format in/out intersect/out. Filter down, I only want to
note colour profiles. De-select properties. Automatically run
tools,
[1]: http://www.planets-project.eu/private/pages/wiki/index.php/List_of_Digital_Object_Types_and_their_Associated_Properties
[2]: http://www.significantproperties.org.uk/
[3]: http://etherpad.com/9YjJuKNzUH