[OAI-implementers] Sets in OAI-PMH and DSpace
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
just to interject: if you find yourself building complex set lattices
(such as Rob's example), you *might* have separate, orthogonal sets that
you're trying to "mush" into a single set hierarchy. cf. "institutions"
and "subjects" in section 2.6 of the OAI-PMH spec.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Simeon Warner wrote:
> Interesting scenario Rob, and I think your description is sound. In the
> OAI context the set structure really doesn't have a notion of set "C":
> there are only sets "A:C" and "B:C", strict subsets of "A" and "B", which
> happen to have the same content.
> The other option is to put everything at the first level and have sets:
> "ComA", "ComB" and "ColC" where it just happens that all items in "ColC"
> are also in "ComA" and "ComB". (I think this is what Thom meant by a
> unique id for each collection)
> As you say, sets are for selective harvesting (not for classification per
> se), so the choice should be motivated by the likely usefulness for
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Tansley, Robert wrote:
> > > The set structure in OAI is very simple, but also has almost
> > > complete flexibility, so I'm sure you could encode any
> > > relationships that DSpace is aware of in them. But the
> > > retrieval on sets is quite limited, so it isn't clear what
> > > good it would do.
> > >
> > > I agree with Hussein -- keep them simple. For DSpace,
> > > possibly a unique ID for each collection.
> > My understanding was that sets could be flat or hierarchical; presumably
> > this means a strict hierarchy, i.e. no node could have >1 parent -- is
> > this correct? If so, DSpace could not expose the case where a
> > Collection appears in two Communities, since the same Collection would
> > have two setSpecs. However, thinking about it, maybe this is actually
> > OK, since that Collection would effectively be two OAI sets with two
> > separate setSpecs; for selective harvesting purposes, harvesters don't
> > necessarily need to know that the two sets are in fact the same
> > Collection.
> > Here's a quick example in case this isn't clear... Collection C is
> > contained in Community A and Community B:
> > Community A Community B
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > Collection C
> > The exposed OAI set structure would be:
> > setSpec setName
> > A Community A
> > A:C Collection C
> > B Community B
> > B:C Collection C
> > Is there any reason why the above might be 'illegal' in OAI-PMH? Might any harvesters get confused?
> > P.S. sorry if cross-posting to dspace-tech & oai-implementers caused any duplication weirdness... I for one seemed to get about 6 copies of replies, I don't know whether that was the mailing lists or my client getting confused though!
> > Robert Tansley / Hewlett-Packard Laboratories / (+1) 617 551 7624
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAI-implementers mailing list
> > List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe:
> > http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oai-implementers
> OAI-implementers mailing list
> List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe:
Michael L. Nelson email@example.com http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/
Dept of Computer Science, Old Dominion University, Norfolk VA 23529
+1 757 683 6393 +1 757 683 4900 (f)