Carl,
> Pete, I'm not sure of your numbering schema (which of my
> mails options 2 and 3 refer to) so excuse if my response is
> off-target>
Oops, sorry, this is what I get for working on concurrent replies and
making hasty cut-n-pastes as discussion moves faster than I do....;-)
I was referring to your options 2 and 3 in your first message to dc-arch
today:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=4460
i.e.
<quote>
2. We (DCMI) go ahead and define a base xml schema that simply
states the dc terms and provides a base value of "any well-formed xml"
- this is what I think Jane is advocating. In this case we could
provide
the basis for some later modeling on how to restrict these trees so that
they are dumb-downable (or decide not to enforce this at all in a
schema).
3. We (DCMI) make an easy stab at this by providing a base schema
that a) allows a value of any xml subtree but b) requires a text value
resulting in xml like the following:
</quote>
...so I think you were on target!
> I think your "reinventing RDF' comment might go a little bit
> too far. Having a simple value and complex value in an xml
> element is pretty vanilla and I believe the proposed
> interpretatioin here is pretty much in line with intentions.
OK. I was just conscious of some of the responses to the draft
guidelines for expressing DC in XML which expressed concerns about that.
And I'd like to be sure that whatever approach we take will be usable
with qualified DC too - I appreciate we aren't addressing qualified DC
here, but we don't want to end up with a convention which isn't
"transferrable" to that context.
> As for not doing that and just providing a base schema that
> permits any arbitrary sub-tree, I'm uncomfortable with the
> policy statement that it makes. Yes xml schema are technical
> artifacts but they do make a policy statement - in this case
> it says that the DCMI says that the value of an dc element is
> anything the implementor wants with no restrictions,
> effectively taking no stand on dumb-down. This seems to
> violate a basic dc principle.
OK, I can see this argument....
However, I think Roland's point
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=2364
was that the schema should support embedded markup in element content in
order to support internationalisation, rather than to support arbitrary
sub-structure, and the XML Schema spec seems to support that assertion
too.
http://www.w3c.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#textType
Is it acceptable to say the dumbed-down/simple value can not have that
embedded markup?
The dumb-down algorithm in
http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/11/30/dcq-rdf-xml/#sec3
is designed to return the "appropriate literal", _but_ "literals" in RDF
_do_ support embedded markup. It's just not processed by the RDF
processor.
I think here we're arguing that the "simple value" must _not_ contain
any embedded markup (because that lets the arbitrary substructure genie
out of the bottle), so we're imposing a tighter restriction on the
dumbed-down value than the RDF algorithm. Is that going to be
acceptable? It may be, I'm not sure.
Pete
|