|
|
>
> 3. Eric Miller has offered a rendition of an RDF schema that he believes
> represents the current state of DC qualifiers and has asked for additional
> attention to this scheme to determine its concordance with DCMI
> recommendations on elements and qualifiers:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq
As i mentioned to dc:registry it's an error to require (!) encoding schemes
for dc elements in a cross domain situation.
The Qualifiers rec. is quite clear about and in agreement
with general DC approach: One can use encoding schemes, but they are
NOT required.
>
> My conclusion from this is that we need both an accurate RDF Schema
> representation and an accurate XML Schema representation, and that their
> style should be very similar (and hence easily interconvertible).
hmm...I view the two schema languages in a different way.
The two schema languages may interact differently with instance data
[documentstructure/entailment] -
I would like to see a clear vision of what "interconvertible" actually
means - that is what eventually defines burden and/or bonus for tool builders
and applications.
For completeness i should mention another DC DTD binding:
http://www.dlmeta.de/jdlmeta/dtd/dlm_display_dtd.jsp
rs
|
|
|
|