The issues is that OLAC and these other uses of Dublin Core don't agree in the semantics of spatial coverage.
https://archive-intranet.ardc.edu.au/display/DOC/Spatial+coverage#:~:text=Spatial%20coverage%20refers%20to%20a,the%20focus%20of%20an%20activity.
Critical question here, is one where we ask: "what do English think geography is for language?"
Thinking deeply about:
https://twitter.com/elararchive/status/1637559068398157824?s=46&t=Zdt2jeAjeFQx6k372aS64A
I wonder how many spelling mistakes we can find in various records in OALC... This is a great reason for OLAC to retain the kind of language the record is in.
https://opensource.com/article/18/2/aspell
https://github.com/uribench/spell-check/blob/master/docs/XML%20Spell%20Checking%20Workaround.md
Install with my blog workflow:
https://github.com/tbroadley/spellchecker-cli
other options: https://vi.stackexchange.com/questions/22220/how-to-make-spell-check-work-for-text-inside-a-xml-file
https://metacpan.org/dist/XML-Twig/view/tools/xml_spellcheck/xml_spellcheck
This record is interesting in that they use a dot notation for Dublin Core.
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/316390?show=full
They also have 4 total schemas used in their application profile, in contrast to extending dublin core with custom serializations.
A New OLAC website should implement oEmbed...
https://github.com/rafaelmartins/pyoembed/
https://github.com/coleifer/micawber
https://oembed.com/
On the flight back from Finland I found it challenging to use my laptop and pulled out my scratch pad to draw out some ideas I was having. One of those ideas was an idea for a record quality investigator. A tool which lets one investigator the presence or absence of features or sets of features in a record or set of records. The goal is to look for any patterns in the records which might be interesting and notable.
What follows are my written notes.
OLAC Documentation is a set independently evolving documents with their own version numbers. What if these documents evolved together in sync? would it make the process more manageable? What if the documentation looked different? More like modern documentation?
I like the following document presentation layouts:
https://github.com/bep/docuapi
https://github.com/matcornic/hugo-theme-learn
https://github.com/alex-shpak/hugo-book
https://github.com/google/docsy
https://github.com/h-enk/doks
Next step is to take the most recent versions of OLAC documents and convert them to markdown. This converter catches all the XML tags while others don't https://codebeautify.org/html-to-markdown
On the list are:
http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/repositories.html
http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html
http://www.language-archives.org/REC/bpr.html
http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html
And each of the extensions.
These need to be cast one way for devs and implementers of technology while another way for managers and archivists.
OLAC Validator custom messages can be created following these steps:
https://xerces.apache.org/xerces2-j/faq-xs.html#faq-4
This is the software it uses for its validator: https://xerces.apache.org/xerces-p/samples/validator.html Ideally this would also be containerized with the other parts.
One approach to get this containerized might be to use this script (which is older and linux oriented) https://github.com/dgricci/xmllint
Another option is to use: https://hub.docker.com/r/isaitb/xml-validator
If this service were implemented on a new server, with a web-interface we might expect to use a newer HTML front end.
here is what I found via gitub:
https://github.com/ebruchez/darius-xml.js
https://github.com/fulvio999/jxmlutil
Darius looks more promising but neither are "out of the box" tools.
This application profile is interesting because the use Additive DC:Type values to refine each other... http://lib.psnc.pl/Content/153/CIMI%20-%20DC%20Guide%20to%20Best%20Practice.pdf
I find that this text object metadata scheme might be useful for describing corpora.
https://www.loc.gov/standards/textMD/
I should look at these auxiliary METS extensions and include them in OLAC discussions
In the fall term of 2022 I took a course on Metadata at UNT. In that course I encountered an interesting Rights Metadata schema create my the California Digital Libraries Project called copyrightMD. This schema is interesting because it articulates where a resource was created.
his is currently on the web here:
https://cdlib.org/groups/rights-management-group-copyrightmd/
But that website seems to not render 100% so I looked it up in the Internet Archive here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20220119153216mp_/https://cdlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/copyrightMD_user_guidelines.pdf
CopyrightMD Has been mentioned in the following academic publications:
I find the list of rights metadata schemas list in the library guide at UCF very helpful:
https://guides.ucf.edu/metadata/adminMetadata
For rights metadata, the common metadata standards such as Dublin Core include a “rights” field. Any known intellectual property rights held for the data, including access rights and rights holder, can be specified in that field. Some digital repositories provide an opportunity to assign a Creative Commons license to the materials or datasets deposited in the repository.
There are other Right Metadata standards including CopyrightMD, METSRights, ONIX For Publications Licenses, Open Digital Rights Language and XrML.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC_REL
However I found that the MEts Rights schema was not linked appropriately:
https://www.loc.gov/standards/rights/
https://www.loc.gov/standards/rights/METSRights.xsd
https://www.loc.gov/standards/rights/2005version/METSRights.xsd
I personally find the statements at rightsstatements.org to be limiting:
https://rightsstatements.org/en/
The educational use permitted one is very confusing: https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-EDU/1.0/?language=en
Note that Creative Commons used to have one like this but they did away with the whole educational use series of licenses, but I can't find them at the moment. I would have thought they might have been here: https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/
http://web.archive.org/web/20100101121150/https://learn.creativecommons.org/
http://web.archive.org/web/20080714211609/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8235
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/I_want_to_make_sure_that_the_OER_I_create_are_used_only_for_truly_educational_purposes._That_means_I_should_limit_my_works_to_%E2%80%9Ceducational_use_only,%E2%80%9D_right%3F
Creative Commons Welcomes David Wiley as Educational Use License Project Lead
Real problems with academics using CC licenses:
https://smcclatchy.github.io/exp-design/LICENSE.html
Copyfraud: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228219706_Copyfraud August 2005New York University law review (1950) 81(3)
See also: 10.5334/jcms.1021217
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275440056_The_Public_Domain_vs_the_Museum_The_Limits_of_Copyright_and_Reproductions_of_Two-dimensional_Works_of_Art
see also: 10.1002/meet.14504701045
see also: 10.2139/ssrn.1806809
see also: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308339459_Museums_Property_Rights_and_Photographs_of_Works_of_Art_Why_Reproduction_Through_Photograph_Should_Be_Free
see also: 10.1515/9783110732009-010 — 8 Rights Issues in the Digitization of Library Collections
~~~~
OER Notes:
U.S. Department of Education Open Licensing Rule Now in Effect
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_and_Open_Educational_Resources
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/OER_Project
© 2005-2024 Hugh Paterson III All Rights Reserved.
By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your Words, Name & Website URL in attribution.
Details of your viewing experience maybe retained and used. -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright