KH: article seems to still endorse RDF a bit; there's value in aligning with DataCite BC: going from XML to JSONLD logic isn't just a question of applying an xslt; we spent several years to come up with xml / mets data model; Gautier Poupeau (author of blob post) designed the dig repo at BnF BC: agree that for people who have XML-based metadata, it's easy to express it as json; but a json-ld expression requires revising your whole data model and so is much harder and very complicated GJ: could you explain why it's not just a simple mapping? BC: because you have to express everything in triples with entity-relationships JK: why isn't it just a set of key/value pairs? JK: should we invite Justin L to future subgroup meeting to help us understand? Bertrand, do you want to join as well? KH: yes, that would find that helpful BC: yes, I would GJ: see https://blog.datacite.org/schema-org-register-dois/ BC: for persistence, we'll be defining our own vocabulary BC: if we went with Dublin Core entity-relationship model, that's simple enough; but if they have to invent their own model, that's much harder; by using linked data, one says that all my data is expressed as triples KH: see also https://github.com/rmap-project/rmap-documentation/blob/master/guides/useful-ontologies.md BC: nice to have a position about how we express metadata, but we have to go further and say, at least for basic metadata, what the recommended model is JK: *model* is important – we need to understand this better as a group KH: fortunately, vocabulary choice is independent of syntax BC: at BnF we chose XML and snippets; we could recommend a set of optional return formats; users at many French archives will have a hard time putting out something different from what they already do; this is an argument for giving people options for returned data KH: make it lightweight, but steer people in certain directions KH: See the Portland Common Data model SM: Portico would like a conceptual model for a landing page as an archival unit; it would be an enormous simplification to be able to have a landing page model for this
Notes
In follow-up email from KH:
Reflecting on the discussion, I think it may have gotten lost that when we were discussing JSON-LD a few weeks ago, I believe it was imagined as part of a series of recommendations, not as requirement. If that is still the case, then perhaps it’s not necessary to add a meeting to discuss the pros and cons of linked data further, since implementation would be looser and JSON-LD would be encouraged but not required. I think it should be perfectly fine for Portico to produce JSON-LD and BNF to produce XML.
I’m wondering if the guidelines might go something along these lines:
At minimum, ?info must resolve to a human readable landing page, and should provide a gateway to machine-readable metadata
It is strongly recommended that meta tags with [something like] DC are implemented (since they are simple html, and all orgs should be able to do something with those).
Finally, regardless of whether JSON-LD is implemented, we encourage organizations to use whatever data format[s] is appropriate in their context as the machine-readable data version of ?info, but encourage that:
Organizations include DC metadata in this where possible
Organizations utilize either content negotiation or add “&format=[json|xml|etc]” property to deal with alternative formats.
This is just a rough example, but maybe something like this approach might work to give a little structure but plenty of flexibility.
Action items
make sure ?info leaves options for people, but steers them towards json