> I'll try and put together my thoughts on this. One immediate
> comment is that you probably need to think about a slightly
> more complex mapping because DC and LOM use 'properties' and
> 'encoding schemes/sources' in slightly different ways. For
> example DC uses the combination of
>
> dc:format scheme="dcterms:IMT"
>
> for what LOM calls
>
> technical.format
At the risk of muddying the waters, it might also be useful to look at
the work of the WG looking at the LOM RDF binding, which explicitly
(re)uses some DC properties to represent some of the LOM metadata
elements. They have provided quite detailed comments on some of the
"semantic issues", which reflect some these subtle differences in the
underlying "models" of DC and LOM.
I haven't looked at it for a while, but AFAIK, the most recent version
is that published at
http://kmr.nada.kth.se/el/ims/metadata.html
with the issues doc at
http://kmr.nada.kth.se/el/ims/md-lom-semantics.html
Pete
|