[oslc-cm] Fw: [helios:wp3] Some initial comments on Helios_bt, aligning usage of DC and OSLC-CM

[Steve K Speicher]

Cross-posting to oslc-cm a discussion on the Helios_bt (bug ontology).

Discussion of usage of dcterms:title and dcterms:abstract.  I have 
enclosed my latest response as <Steve>

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve Speicher
> Date: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [helios:wp3] Some initial comments on Helios_bt, 
> aligning usage of DC and OSLC-CM
> To: Olivier Berger
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Olivier Berger 
<olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu
> > wrote:
> Le jeudi 22 juillet 2010 à 09:52 -0400, Steve Speicher a écrit :
> > These comments are on
> > 
http://heliosplatform.sourceforge.net/ontologies/2010/05/helios_bt.html
> >
> > Within OSLC-CM [1], we've re-evaluated our usage of some Dublin Core
> > properties [2].  Namely, we felt we were using dc:title when
> > dc:abstract may be more appropriate.  We have looked at utilizing
> > dc:title for a shorter form for a change request.

> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> I'm a bit dubious on the (title) vs (title + abstract).
> 
> Refering to academic publishing for instance, I see title of a paper as
> a descriptive phrase (short) of the content, whereas abstract would be a
> couple paragraphs explaining in more details the meaning of the title.
> It should convey more than an identifier (for which there's
> dc:identifier ;)
> 
> Now, in the example you provide below, I think that "Issue58365" is not
> meaningful at all. It's more an identifier than the title of a bug
> report, for me. Even though the page at
> <http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=58365> may actually be titled so
> (actually, here the html:title is in indeed "Bug 58365 - mantis uses
> bundled libraries instead of system-wide ones", as some RDFa tools
> extract it...)
> 
> Maybe the abstract could be some kind of a summary of the various
> aspects of the bug report, as added once the support staff has
> summarized an abstract, after several iterations with reporter and other
> concerned parties ?
> In the Debian bugtracker (debbugs) there's the "summary" field [0] that
> may be set for just such use.
> 
> In absence of the need for such an abstract/summary, should the title be
> descriptive enough, the title only could be used.
> 
> So I would rather see something like :
> 
> # This is turtle format for RDF
> @prefix rdf:      <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
> 
> @prefix dcterms:  <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>.
> @prefix oslc_cm:  <http://open-services.net/ns/cm#>.
> 
> <http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=58365>
> 
>        a       oslc_cm:ChangeRequest;
>        dcterms:identifier   "58365";
>        dcterms:title        "mantis uses bundled libraries instead 
> of system-wide ones";
>        dcterms:abstract     "mantis uses libraries like nusoap, 
> adodb and phpmailer, which should not be shipped along the .";
> 
> [0] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#summary
> 
> <Steve> When looking at this, I tried using the academic paper and 
> publication analogy (while keeping to what DC describes for the terms).
> 
> When I look at title, it is something that doesn't identify a 
> publication but a meaningful title say "REST best practices".  As 
> you state an abstract is at most a couple paragraphs.
> Though I believe in most bug tools I've seen, there is no concept of
> a "couple paragraph" abstract more true to what DC calls the 
> abstract which is a "summary of the resource".  I see a bug title 
> being, like academic papers, a meaningful way to refer to the 
> resource (perhaps not a UUID or URL) but something that would make 
> sense to humans.  For example, when I tell a colleague what bug to 
> refer to I say "Bug123".
> The dc:identifier is like the ISBN for a publication.  It is not 
> necessarily a URI, though the service knows that it is a way to 
> identify the resource. </Steve>

> Maybe this should be discussed on OSLC side (feel free to quote me 
/forward).
> 
> Yes, I think I'll forward to OSLC mailing list.  I will also forward
> to a couple of people to get an opinion on.

> 
> > (btw, in OSLC we use DCTERMS and not DCELEMENTS)
> >

> Uh... can you update me : just the latest version of DC properties that
> are now called terms and using http://purl.org/dc/terms/ instead of
> previous one that used http://purl.org/dc/elements/ but same semantics ?
> 
> <Steve> Yes, DCTERMS has different namespace and includes all the 
DCELEMENTS
> with the same semantics.  In OSLC we depend on additional terms such
> as dcterms:modified. </Steve>
>