Hi Pete,
The following statement seems problematic to me:
In contrast to the case of the DCMES, the DC Terms vocabulary is regularly
extended through the addition of new terms by the Usage Board; the DCMI Type
Vocabulary is also occasionally extended.
The words "DC Terms vocabulary" in particular. This makes it seem as though
there is a relationship between a term's (DC) vocabulary type and the
namespace it is defined in, which is not the case. Currently all new
elements and element-refinements are defined in http://purl.org/terms/, but
that does not limit their vocabulary type. audience (an element) and
mediator (an element refinement) are good examples of this since they are
both defined in the terms namespace.
Regards... harry
> A number of issues have been raised by implementers using the W3C XML
> Schemas [1] which support the XML encoding described in the Guidelines
> for implementing Dublin Core in XML [2]
>
> I've summarised the primary concerns here
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/xmls-issues/
>
> I've made some proposals and left some questions open.
>
> I'm hoping at least some of these issues will be discussed at DC-2004,
> in the DC Arch WG meeting and/or in the "Sweb" Special Sessions on
> Vocabulary Maintainance.
>
> Comments welcome here too, of course.
>
> Pete
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/
>
> -------
> Pete Johnston
> Research Officer (Interoperability)
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
> tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
>
|