On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Simon Cox wrote:
> "Sigfrid Lundberg, Lub NetLab" wrote:
> >
> > My opposition boils down to one single point: That the dc-usage wg seem to
> > be moving two and half years backwards by rejecting the idea of structured
> > datatypes.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Structured datatypes exist through "schemes", they always have.
> This is a very effective, scalable, modular place to put them.
> In general it is also very safe.
No, schemes are for literal values only (yes, literals may have
structure).
That was the way we talked about it in the data modelling work group, and
I haven't seen a decision that we should see upon value qualifier in some
other way:
"A Value Qualifier refers to the value, specifying either an
encoding rule or a controlled vocabulary to aid in interpreting
the value. Value Qualifiers apply only to strings, but may be
expressed as URIs. Recommended practice is to use a Value
Qualifier generally understood by the target community, or a
standard encoding or parsing scheme in wide use across
communities. Repetition of elements allows use of Value
Qualifiers from more than one source or at more than one level
of specificity."
(from
<URL:http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-datamodel/files/decisions.html>)
A structured value is a generalization of an encoding scheme, or in RDF
parlance a node. Obvously, people do, and will do more often still in the
future create their own name spaces.
> Structured values/value components are NOT a part of the Dublin CORE -
> only elements are. You can represent the semantics of components/structure
> by "adding in" a structure to the leaf node. But the definition of such
> structures is much better done outside the core.
But the container of the structure is, and that's the point. If we, like
Tom did, state that qualifiers are either "element qualifiers" or
"encoding schemes" then we preclude structure, period. I realize that he
didn't mean that, but that is what he de facto said.
One of my problems with the DCMI is that my memory is very much better
than most people's I know. Whenever an agreement has been reached, I take
for granted that this agreement is valid until we _explicitely_ agreed
something else in the issue, whereas most you produce "new" analyses of
old problems without ever looking back to what we did three years ago.
These lists are so filled with repetitions that I sometimes feel ashamed
for being a part of the initiative.
Sigge
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|