Tom,
> Put this way, it could be misunderstood. Reporting the
> decisions of the Usage Board is actually the responsibility of
> the Usage Board (see the http://dublincore.org/usage/ tree).
> In my opinion, it is more accurate to say that serving up
> those decisions and making them searchable in various ways
> is an important function of the registry.
I'll buy that. Stu calls this role "exposing" the UB decisions. Sounds
right to me.
> > > Doesn't produce RDF instance data.
> > > [[
> > > > There will be other registries (not to mention other
> applications)
> > > which
> > > > access the machine-readable representations of the DCMI
> vocabularies
> > > > (the "DCMI RDF schemas").
> > > ]]
> >
> > Same as above. There is no functional requirement for this.
>
> This may not be a functional requirement for the Phase
> I registry, but it is a requirement for DCMI as a whole,
> as acknowledged in the "Draft DCMI Open Metadata Registry
> Functional Requirements" of 2001-10-31:
>
> "Readers should be aware that the DCMI Registry exists
> alongside the straightforward 'registry service' provided by
> the web, i.e. it will be possible to link over the web direct
> to DCMI schemas by means of resolvable DCMI namespace URI's
> (using HTTP GET namespace URI)."
>
I believe we meet this requirement. There are links to the schemas, and you
can access the rdf via them - but it is a stretch, I think, to call this
registry functionality.
Regards,
Harry
|