Eric,
> Hmm... I too had assumed the requirements from the original
> implementation would have been made more explicit in the current work.
> I'd very much support access to this data as it is in part what makes
> DCMI so very relevant to international metadata communities.
What is the 'original implementation' (and it's requirements) that you refer
to? The only functional requirements I'm aware of are at:
http://dublincore.org/groups/registry/fun_req_ph1-20011031.shtml, and did
not get beyond the draft stage. The only implementations I'm aware of are
the 3 prototypes I wrote at: http://wip.dublincore.org/registry/Registry#H2
I relied on these, and discussions on the registry mailing list, to
formulate functional requirements. These have been available for public
comment for over a year.
> Harry, Is there a page where the requirements along with
> those discussed
> on this list are being maintained so that we can better track the
> direction of this work?
Initial discussions concerning the phase 2 functional requirements will take
place at the registry WG meeting in Florence. See:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0209&L=dc-registry&T=0&O=D&P=
4825. This information will be maintained on the WG home page:
http://dublincore.org/groups/registry/.
I believe what you and Pete are requesting is that the registry provide rdf
schemas in non-enUS languages. Your requirement has been heard. The focus
for phase 2 is to enable the registry to interface with other registries and
applications. Part of that interface will be to provide information about
DC terms and qualifiers in various encoding formats, including xsd and rdfs.
It makes sense that these formats would be useful to applications. It does
not make sense (IMO) for the registry to serve rdf schemas to users via the
UI. The registries focus is to provide information about DC terms and
qualifiers, not about encoding techniques.
I'm not sure what form this application-to-application interface will take.
That will depend on the requirements. If there are registries or
applications NOW that could take advantage of interfacing with the DCMI
registry I would love to hear what their requirements are.
There are some additional issues here. The only approved version of the
terms and qualifiers is the enUS version. We will either have to serve
non-enUS versions with a caveat or get the non-enUS versions approved. I
can see problems with both approaches.
Best Regards,
Harry
|