[DDI-users] Recommended use of TopcClas in DDI-C 2.1

[Wendy Thomas]

I've looked into this a bit more and I can see where you have very limited
alternatives in 2.1 or in 2.5.
As you know I'm highly adverse to repurposing elements and in this case
your proposal makes it so that your content is not usable in DC and renders
difficulties for other search engines that anticipate a string content of a
subject term.

A way to get around this in an updated version of Codebook would be to add
a standard option to baseElementType that is available in Lifecycle, the
UserID
This would allow you to add the direct link here or in other locations
where you need it.

I'm only suggesting it as a possibility as I may be proposing a broad
solution to a more specific problem. In any case you should file it so we
could consider the problem as well as possible solutions that would benefit
you and still retain compatibility with DC.

This link will take you to the entry form to file an issue for Codebook:
https://ddi-alliance.atlassian.net/CreateIssue.jspa?pid=10400
<https://ddi-alliance.atlassian.net/CreateIssue.jspa?pid=10000>

Wendy

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:31 AM Steven McEachern <steven.mceachern at anu.edu.au>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We are looking to make (renewed) use of Topic Classification from DDI-C
> 2.1:
>
>
> https://ddialliance.org/Specification/DDI-Codebook/2.1/DTD/Documentation/topcClasType.html
>
> The field definition in the spec defines this as:
>
> "The "vocab" attribute is provided for specification of the controlled
> vocabulary in use, e.g., LCSH, MeSH, etc. The "vocabURI" attribute
> specifies the location for the full controlled vocabulary. Maps to Dublin
> Core Subject element. Inclusion of this element in the codebook is
> recommended."
>
> With the example(s):
>
> <topcClas vocab="LOC Subject Headings" vocabURI="
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html"> Public opinion --
> California -- Statistics</topcClas>
>
> The example and the definition suggest that it is the VOCABULARY that
> should be used in this field. Our preference however is to actually use the
> PURL for the specific term here, e.g.:
> http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/16
> The aim here is to progressively allow us to provide findability for
> datasets using a linked data approach.
>
> I'm hoping colleagues can provide feedback on:
> a) Is this consistent with the definition of topcClas? (I note
> specifically the mapping to the DC term "subject" -
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/subject)
> b) Is anyone using topcClas in this way?
> c) If we did so, does anyone see any problems if we were to link to the
> specific PURL rather than the vocabulary?
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Dr. Steven McEachern
> Director, Australian Data Archive
> Australian National University
> Ph. (+61)2 6125 2200
> E: steven.mceachern at anu.edu.au
> http://www.ada.edu.au
> ----------------------------------------------
>


-- 
Wendy L. Thomas                              Phone: +1 612.624.4389
Data Access Core Director                 Fax:   +1 612.626.8375
Minnesota Population Center             Email: wlt at umn.edu
University of Minnesota
50 Willey Hall
225 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-users/attachments/20190902/275bcb40/attachment.html