Tom, et al.,
>>> Makx Dekkers <[log in to unmask]> 6/08/02 09:17:10 >>>
In order to catch any errors that may have crept into the documents...
Congrats on what looks like a big tidyup, on first impressions it appears to make things a lot clearer. I'm also especially pleased to see RFC3066 has arrived.
I guess a couple [well, who's counting] of questions come up for me:
1. Conforming scope: Conforming "things" meet the need for an implementation community, however this implementation community is not named in the current lists or decisions (you have to go the proposal document to find this) - was this intentional? I suppose the question is can anyone use a conforming thing, or is it best only to use it if you are acting within an implementation community that has proposed it?
2. The Audience element appears in the current list [1] with status Recommended rather than Conforming - is this correct, ie. cross-domain? I notice it is in the terms namespace, not the elements/1.1 namespace...
My apologies if I missed it, is there mention somewhere in these documents of what it means to have recommended elements that are not part of the 15-element DCMES set? At first, when I saw it had status Recommended [for all domains to use] I assumed it had become a 16th core element, but it hasn't - slightly confusing.
3. The announcement email states the "Generic addresses for the elements and qualifiers will be redirected to the [full elements/qualifiers list]". I would have thought I'd prefer to end up at the current list (from where I can access the full list). Or is the intention to support older applications?
4. A small thing, some proposals were rejected citing usable terms are already available in another namespace (eg. the Description.version decision [2] says instead use "edition" from MODS). I guess this is easy enough when using XML Schemas, but I'm unsure how this works in RDF if the host hasn't defined an RDF Schema for them.
And fyi, here are a couple of errors I noticed:
1. PhysicalObject: The decision [3] states 'Accept with status "conforming"', but the Approved text gives a status of Recommended (this status also appears in the DCMI Type listing [1]) - not sure which is correct. Also, the Approved text doesn't match the DCMI Type listing (eg. Name and Label are back-to-front and the date issued is different).
2. educationLevel: The decision [4] states accepted, but this refinement doesn't appear in the current list [1] (or full/historical list).
Thanx,
Douglas Campbell
National Library of New Zealand
[1] http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/dc/current-elements/
[2] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2002/2002-02.version.shtml
[3] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2002/2002-02.PhysicalObject.shtml
|