I think it would be useful to clarify 'naming' of DCMI vocabularies, as in
particular it no longer seems to me clear as to what is meant by 'DC
Simple'.
I am aware that various documents out for comment have defined DC Simple,
but common usage outside these documents does seem to me to be unclear and
so i believe this issue needs addressing.
Andy quite rightly makes the point in his mail earlier to-day on another
thread (see
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=&S=&P=12220
>?? - didn't we just have a loonngggg discussion about this on
>dc-architecture ending with
>
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=&S=&P=94
68
>It seemed to me that we reached some concensus on the issue of what
>'Simple Dublin Core' is in that discussion. Perhaps not?
However as I understand it that discussion was about how to encode
an XML schema, rather than whether DCMI should use the exoression 'Simple
DC' as a synonym for 15 elements (as opposed to 16 elements).
At very least surely we need to define DC Simple outside these somewhat
inaccessible specs (as Andy says at end of his mail, in glossary
perhaps)??
It seems to me there are two likely options, and it would be helpful if we
agreed which of these was the focus for existing and future future
documentation. I think the criteria for decision could be clarity for
non-expert, and fit with continued evolution of DCMI terms.
Option One
----------
I would like to propose that DCMI produces specs etc
focusing on
DC unqualified (encompassing implementation restricted to the 16
elements)
DC qualified (encompassing implementations allowing use of any DCMI
terms)
OR
Option Two
----------
DCMES (encompassing implementation restricted to DCMES v1.1, the 15 elements)
DC unqualified (encompassing implementation restricted to the 16
elements)
DC qualified (encompassing implementations allowing use of any DCMI
terms)
-------------------------
As I understand it schemas could be produced using the DCMI namespaces to
express either of these options as RDF schemas.
Following on from this DC Simple would be a 'qualitative' statement
meaning a non-complex usage of DC terms, but not a specific set of terms.
An XML schema might be suggested then as an 'example' of a DC simple
implementation. I think this would then fit in with the somewhat
contentious idea that DC Simple is an 'application profile'.
Personally I prefer Option One as it seems to me to allow for continued
implementation of the DCMES v1.1 while not emphasising the historical '15
elements'.
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|