Rachel,
> I think it would be useful to clarify 'naming' of DCMI
> vocabularies, as in particular it no longer seems to me clear
> as to what is meant by 'DC Simple'.
>
> I am aware that various documents out for comment have
> defined DC Simple, but common usage outside these documents
> does seem to me to be unclear and so i believe this issue
> needs addressing.
I agree with you that this needs addressing.
And I think Andy's attempts to be specific about what we meant by
"Simple DC" and "Qualified DC" in 4.1 and 5.1 of
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-xml-guidelines/
are a step towards this.
As I think Andy acknowledged here
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=8322
those descriptions were his "invention" - unavoidably, because there was
no specific description available:
<quote>
I think that our problem is that we don't have a shared understanding of
what 'simple dc' and 'qualified dc' mean. I've put forward my ideas in
that document. Nobody has commented on them. Frankly, I was suprised
at
this, cos I was expecting my descriptions of the models underlying
simple
dc and qualified dc to be at least a little contentious.
</quote>
And as I think Roland is now highlighting, the model for "simple DC" in
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-xml-guidelines/
appears to be slightly different from the model for "simple DC" which
underpins
http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/11/28/dcmes-xml/
> However as I understand it that discussion was about how to
> encode an XML schema, rather than whether DCMI should use the
> exoression 'Simple DC' as a synonym for 15 elements (as
> opposed to 16 elements).
Oh.... I think at least _some_ of the discussion _was_ about the
suggested "abstract model" for "Simple DC" rather than its
representation in an XML Schema?
Not sure if this is helpful here or not, but for me, one of the
interesting aspects of the recent discussions was that they highlighted
the distinction between:
(i) (named) sets of elements/terms (which I think is what you refer to
as "vocabularies"?)(e.g. "the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set", "the
Dublin Core element refinements") [N.B. these sets may not be
"coextensive" with the DC XML namespaces e.g. "the Dublin Core top-level
elements" would draw on terms from two namespaces] and
(ii) (named) "usages" of selections of elements/terms (e.g. "Simple DC"
and "Qualified DC", as defined by Andy).
I'm trying to resist using the term "application profile" here to
describe objects in this second class, but I do agree with Andy's
assertion here
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=8462
that "[simple DC] is a particular usage of 15 DC elements in a
particular way"...
And that is something different from, say, "the Dublin Core Metadata
Element Set, 1.1"
Unfortunately, we (or at least I) have tended to be rather less than
consistent in how we name such objects/constructs. So, in the past I've
probably used "Simple DC" interchangeably with "DCMES 1.1", but from
this perspective I don't think they are the same. Certainly, "Qualified
DC" is something different from "the Dublin Core Qualifiers".
> At very least surely we need to define DC Simple outside
> these somewhat inaccessible specs (as Andy says at end of his
> mail, in glossary perhaps)??
Oooh, "inaccessible" seems a bit harsh.... ;-)
But yes, I agree that having such descriptions in a glossary would be a
Good Thing.
Pete
|