On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Andy Powell wrote:
>
> I stand by the assertion in section 4.1 of
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-xml-guidelines/
>
> that in simple DC "each value [of a property] is a literal string".
>
> The desire to embed more complex structured information into a DC element
> value is fine... but it is *not* 'simple DC' (IMHO).
>
> The XML schema under discussion is explicitly an XML schema for 'simple
> DC'. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the schema to allow
> anything other than strings as element values. Therefore we should revert
> to the originally proposed XML schema.
If I understand correctly you are suggesting a different restriction on
the 15 core DC elements whether they are used as part of 'simple' or
'qualified' DC? That does not seem a very robust approach?
I am not confident that particular implementations will be able to
categorise themselves as 'simple' or 'qualified' ?
From DCMI view:
What I would like to see is one XML schema for all DC terms... given that
we now have elements in 2 different namespaces I think we have to accept
the need for a schema containing all terms.... surely it will be a
nonsense to have a schema with qualifiers and one element??
Rachel
>
> Here are two arguments to support this position:
>
> 1) If the abstract model for 'simple DC' that we proposed above is wrong,
> i.e. if the simple DC model allows element values that are more complex
> than literal strings, then we can *not* implement 'simple DC' in HTML meta
> tags.
... is it not acceptable that HTML meta tags will only allow 'limited'
implementation? One just accepts that HTML syntax does not offer same
flexibility as XML or RDF/XML. Otherwise we are constrained by one
syntax??
Rachel
|