Andy -
is there an explicit binding of the dcterms "namespace prefix" to the DC
Terms namespace identifier within a XHTML instance?
I'm thinking that if "dc terms" acts like any other XML namespace, then the
namespace prefix is incidental and the colonised notation just an artefact.
To a fully namespace-aware processor, the token "dcterms:modified" is
interpreted as a tuple composed of the actual namespace identifer (not the
prefix) and the token "modified".
Simon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Automatic digest processor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 May 2003 7:10 AM
> To: Recipients of DC-ARCHITECTURE digests
> Subject: DC-ARCHITECTURE Digest - 2 Apr 2003 to 5 May 2003 (#2003-19)
>
>
> There is one message totalling 61 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Expressing Qualified Dublin Core in HTML/XHTML meta elements
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 22:19:05 +0100
> From: Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Expressing Qualified Dublin Core in HTML/XHTML meta elements
>
> I've finally got round to looking back thru the last set of
> comments on
> this working draft and have put together a new version.
>
> Expressing Qualified Dublin Core in HTML/XHTML meta elements
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dcq-html/
>
> I hope I've taken all the relevant comments on board - plus some extra
> ones! ;-)
>
> The major changes are
>
> - use of 'dc:' and 'dcterms:' rather then 'DC.' and
> 'DCTERMS.' as prefixes
> for DCMI property names
> - addition of 'dcterms:' prefix to encoding scheme names
> - use of <link> tag for properties with a value that is a URL
> for another
> resource
>
> To summarise, this means that
>
> <meta name="dcterms:modified"
> scheme="dcterms:W3CDTF"
> content="2003-05-05" />
> <link rel="dc:relation"
> href="http://www.ukoln.ac.uk" />
>
> is the recommended form, rather than
>
> <meta name="DC.date.modified"
> scheme="W3CDTF"
> content="2003-05-05" />
> <meta name="DC.relation"
> content="http://www.ukoln.ac.uk" />
>
> though both these forms (and other variations of case) are explicitly
> stated as continuing to be acceptable (but not recommended).
> Therefore,
> there is no problem with backwards compatability with this draft -
> documents with embedded metadata that conform to previous
> recommendations will continue to be conformant.
>
> I guess these are pretty major changes, and that not everyone will be
> happy with them!? However, I wanted to see what the document
> looked like
> using the colon-separated form thoughout. My gut feeling is
> that it looks
> much better and is much more intuitive for those people who
> are working
> across the RDF/XML, XML and XHTML encoding syntaxes.
>
> What do other people think?
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of DC-ARCHITECTURE Digest - 2 Apr 2003 to 5 May 2003 (#2003-19)
> *******************************************************************
>
|