> From [log in to unmask] Wed Mar 6 13:15 MET 2002
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> Importance: Normal
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:16:17 -0000
> From: Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Public Comment on DC-simple XML Schema declaration within OAI
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hello Jane,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> > My major concern with this schema is that you are limiting
> > implementors who wish to refine the base DC element types -
> > to restrictions of strings only.
>
> This "simpledc" schema has, admittedly, been driven (to some extent at
> least) by the specific requirements of the OAI folks. The current OAI
> schema for DC metadata uses a type of string for all elements
>
> http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/1.1/dc.xsd
>
> so I guess the OAI folks are happy with a base of xs:string and don't
> have a requirement for a broader "base" type.
>
> But leaving OAI aside for a moment, I think the intention was to model
> (only) 'Simple DC'?
> I guess this brings us back to the perennial "what is Simple DC?"
> question, which I'm not sure DCMI has a clear answer to - and
> partcularly, is it true that in 'Simple DC', the value of a DC element
> is a literal. I guess I was basing my assumptions on the "abstract
> model" described in section 4.1 of
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-xml-guidelines/
>
> <quote>
> A simple DC record is made up of one or more properties and their
> associated values.
> Each property is an attribute of the resource being described.
> Each property must be one of the 15 DCMES [DCMES] elements.
> Properties may be repeated.
> Each value is a literal string.
Yes - this is were the issue originates from.
You're modelling relative to that draft.
rs
> Each literal string value may have an associated language (e.g. en-GB).
> </quote>
>
> I do take your point that other applications making use of elements from
> the http://purl.org/elements/1.1/ namespace may well require more
> flexibility in terms of typing. And when we were working on the schemas
> to support the Guidelines for DC in XML document, we picked xs:string as
> a fairly arbitrary "base" type to get something working, but I would
> have been quite happy to make that broader along the lines you suggest,
> because the aim there was explicitly to try to support the functionality
> you describe.
>
> However, for this simpledc schema, the intention was (I think!) only to
> model 'Simple DC'. If the summary above is a good representation of
> 'Simple DC' (i.e. values are literal strings) and if this schema is
> intended only to model Simple DC, then I was going to argue for sticking
> with a base type of xs:string - but I've just seen Roland's message and
> I think maybe we need to look harder at that... ;-)
>
> If this is not the correct model for Simple DC and/or the schema is
> intended as a more general basis for application profiles, then I think
> a broader base type is certainly required, as you suggest.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete
>
|