Tod,
What is at the PURLs documented in the namespace doc is RDF. I don't see
the advantage to using RDDL. However, I do see an advantage to generating
the human-readable version of the schemas using XSLT. We have a very full
plate already for the registry breakout session. I do not see how we can
afford to add this to the agenda.
Regards,
Harry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tod Matola [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 12:07 PM
> To: Rachel Heery
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DC2001 : DCMI Registry WG breakout agenda
>
>
> Rachel/Dan/Harry,
>
> Can you add an item to talk about Arron's RDDL document[1] or
> answer the
> question what do I get when I click on a DCMI namespace
> (fingers crossed
> it is RDDL, but I have been wrong in the past :-)?
>
> The reason I'm asking this WG this question, is they seemed to have
> motivated the DCMI namespace policy (since a registry would be limited
> without the set of namespaces). Second this question (what is
> at the end
> of a namespace URI?) seem to go hand in hand with such a policy.
>
> Cheers Tod...
>
> [1]
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0110&L=dc-archi
> tecture&F=&S=&P=209
>
> Rachel Heery wrote:
> >
> > For those of you who will be in Tokyo next wee here are
> details of the
> > Registry WG agenda
> >
> > DC2001 Tokyo
> > DCMI Registry WG breakout session : Agenda
> >
> > This breakout session is scheduled for Tuesday 23 October
> from 15.00-17.00
> > and will follow on from a demonstration of the DCMI
> prototype registry
> > earlier that day. It would be helpful if attendees have a
> look at this
> > prototype themselves before attending the workshop. See
> > http://wip.dublincore.org:8080/registry/Registry
> >
> > 1. Prioritising functionality requirements
> > We would like to finalise the functionality of the first
> phase of the
> > registry, and prioritise functionality for phase 2. We would like to
> > decide on:
> >
> > 1.1 Searching
> > Is a search function really required in addition to
> 'browsing' i.e. will
> > users want to search registry for a text string like
> 'title' as well as
> > browsing through the terms in the registry?
> >
> > 1.2 Multilinguality
> > What is the priority of multilingual functionality? Does
> priority differ
> > as regards translation of the definitions? of the user interface?
> > Who is responsible for provision of translations for
> definitions and user
> > interface? Is there an approval process?
> >
> > 2. Place of Registry in DCMI workflow
> >
> > 2.1 We need to clarify the relation of registry to Usage Board (this
> > discussion will be informed by a report back from the
> Usage Board meeting
> > taking place on Monday 22 October)
> >
> > 2.2 What is the role of the registry in relation to the
> documentation of
> > elements and qualifiers on the Web site ?
> > Is the registry the canonical source for the ISO 11179
> style definitions
> > used on the Web site? Is the RDF/XML schema the canonical
> source? Or are
> > both derived from data held elsewhere?
> >
> > 2.3 Will domain specific terms and/or application profiles
> be registered?
> > If so by whom?
> >
> > Should terms from domain specific application profiles such
> as the DC
> > Library application profile be identified in any way?
> >
> > How does registration of schemes relate to the process for recording
> > schemes under discussion in the Usage Board?
> >
> > 2.4 We need to clarify responsibility for the canonical
> expression of DC
> > terms in RDF schemas
> > Who is responsible for amending and approving RDF schemas?
> > Who is responsible for deciding what is the most effective
> expression of
> > the structure of DC terms in RDF schemas?
> > (For example the following schemas express classes of
> schemes in different
> > ways)
> > http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmes-qualifiers/
> >
> http://www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de/projects/dcqual/qual21
> .3.1/qual29-8-1.html
> >
> > - will the registry add value by annotating those schemas, by adding
> > structure to the schemas or by adding structure independent of the
> > schemas?
> >
> > 4. Liaison with registry effort elsewhere
> > It would be useful to have more focused liaison with
> registry related
> > activity elsewhere. For example the OASIS ebXML Registry Technical
> > Committee which seeks to build interoperable registries and
> repositories
> > to support e-business. Also the Universal Description, Discovery and
> > Integration (UDDI) work on registration of Web services,
> and related work
> > on the Java API for XML Registries 1.0 (JAXR).
> >
> > 5. Discussion of charter for next year
> > For suggested charter see link to DCMI Registry WG Status
> report from
> > http://dublincore.org/groups/registry/
> >
> > Relevant documents
> > ---------------------------
> > Registry prototype is now available at
> > http://wip.dublincore.org:8080/registry/Registry
> >
> > The functional requirements are available at
> > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/~lisrmh/DCMI-registry/funreq.html
> >
> > ISO/IEC 11179-1 Specification and standardization of data
> elements. Parts
> > 1-6
> > http://www.sdct.itl.nist.gov/~ftp/x3l8/other/coalition/Ovr11179.html
> >
> > Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description
> > http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/
> >
> > Dublin Core Qualifiers (principles governing qualifiers and
> instances)
> > http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmes-qualifiers/
> >
> > Draft RDF schemas
> > http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/
> > http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dcq#
> >
> http://www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de/projects/dcqual/qual21
.3.1/qual29-8-1.html
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rachel Heery
> UKOLN
> University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
> Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
--
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
|
