I agree with Stu that we need both accurate RDF Schema and XML Schema
representations of both the DCMES and the DC qualifiers.
In the document below which I put together for a variety of organizations
including theViDe Video Access Working Group <[log in to unmask]>, I've
developed an application profile for generic video description which combines
DC and MPEG-7 elements:
http://metadata.net/harmony/video_appln_profile.html
It requires both an XML Schema for the DCMES and the DC qualifiers. I've
included a draft XML Schema for the DCMES in Appendix A and am happy to help
work on an XML Schema for the DC qualifiers.
regards,
jane
> There are several emergent issues in the DCQ Schema thread at this time:
>
> 1. Andy is correct in that the current state of affairs is quite bad.
> Pointing to an incorrect RDF Schema is inappropriate.
>
> 2. Andy and Carl are correct in observing that the namespace policy does not
> specify a particular encoding idiom, but rather, indicate that:
>
> "All DCMI namespace URIs will resolve to a machine-processable
> DCMI term declaration for all the terms within that namespace."
>
> 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
>
> 4. DCMI is on record as indicating that at this time the state of flux as
> regards RDF and XML schemas makes it undesireable to recommend one or
> another machine-processable encoding of DCMI metadata, and that the natural
> consequence of this is the necessity of supporting alternative encodings.
>
>
> 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).
>
> Is it possible that a small task force representing each of these camps
> might direct focussed and immediate attention to solving this problem in the
> near term?
>
> Eric is the natural leader of the RDF camp, and has in fact invested
> significant effort in articulating that version. I am hoping that, as the
> digital library domain's major thrust towards interoperable metadata,
> technical representatives of the OAI might help us convert their encoding of
> DC into the canonical XML schema representation (but including both the base
> element set *and* qualifiers).
>
> How we point to them is another issue, but one step at a time.
>
> stu
|