Andy,
I read your guidelines and I wish I had them last year when we did our
binding.
We were very much concerned to avoid any nesting. Our interpretation was that
this might be bad policy having in mind information exchange and dumbing down.
May I also suggest that you one more example to to this excellent and useful
text? Since you mention this particular case of format in your text
anyway....I think this particular example speaks in favour of your approach to
binding.
<dc:format>
<dcterms:extent>
<dcterms:duration>
10 sec
</dcterms:duration>
<dcterms:size>
5 Mb
<dcterms:size>
</dcterms:extent>
</dc:format>
<dc:format>
<dcterms:medium scheme="IMT">
audio/basic
</dcterms:medium>
</dc:format>
Did I understand correctly that the names of the properties (dc elements and
their refinements) don't express hierarchy themselves and it is only their
position in the nested structure that indicates whether they are only
"refinements" or "refinements of the refinements"?
Is the mapping to the parent element in the proces of dumbing-down as
mentioned by Roland Schwaenzl yesterday, something we should count on as a
"default" when talking about interoperability and information exchange?
(I am thinking here in particular to what can be understood from Carl Lagoze's
"Keeping Dublin Core Simple" in D-Lib)
many thanks
Aida
Andy Powell wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Aida Slavic wrote:
>
> > Refinements for the element format suggested in the the Qualified DC
> > are extent and medium. Extent can be of two type (size and duration)
> > and I wonder whether there is a reason why ISO 8601 standard for the
> > period-duration time is not suggested to be used as encoding scheme
> > for this refinement?
>
> Aida,
> I'm not sure - and I answer as previous chair of the Format WG! :-).
>
> You'll note that ISO8601 is not a recommended encoding scheme for any
> element! Instead, a restricted profile of ISO8601, known as W3C-DTF, has
> been adopted for date and temporal. This profile does not support the form
> of ISO8601 you use below ('PT0H15M4S'). (Therefore W3C-DTF is probably
> not an appropriate qualifier for extent).
>
> > As I have introduced this encoding scheme I would like to know what
> > would be a proper way (i.e. more standardized) way of XML encoding.
> >
> > <format type="extent" scheme="ISO8601">PT0H15M4S</format>
> > <format type="medium" scheme="IMT">audio/basic</format>
> >
> > or
> >
> > <format scheme="imt" extent="PT0H15M4S">audio/basic</format>
>
> You might be interested in taking a look at
>
> Dublin Core in XML - Guidelines for implementors
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/resources/dc/dc-xml-guidelines/
>
> which are very much my personal views about the preferred way of encoding
> DC in XML (note: XML *not* RDF/XML). Based on these guidelines, I think
> your example would be better encoded as:
>
> <dc:format>
> <dcterms:extent scheme="ISO8601">
> PT0H15M4S
> </dcterms:extent>
> </dc:format>
> <dc:format>
> <dcterms:medium scheme="IMT">
> audio/basic
> </dcterms:medium>
> </dc:format>
>
> (some reasons for using this form are given in the document above).
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems and Services
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK [log in to unmask]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell Voice: +44 1225 323933
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/ Fax: +44 1225 826838
--
Aida Slavic
LITC
South Bank University
103 Borough Road
London SE1 0AA
tel: +44 (0)207 815 7845
fax: +44 (0)207 815 7050
|