Rachel,
> In summary, initially the AM document states:
>
> "The abstract model of DCMI metadata descriptions is as follows:
> * The value representation may take the form of a value
> string, a rich value or a related description."
>
> then
>
> "A number of things about the model are worth noting:
> * A related description describes a related resource and
> is therefore not part of the description - for example, a
> related description may provide metadata about the person
> that is the creator of the described resource."
>
> These statements seem to me contradictory, or at least
> confusing, as to the role of related description in the
> model. Also I note related description appears as an entity
> in Figure 2 the DCMI description model.
>
> Perhaps something like the following is the case?
>
> * The value representation may take the form of a value
> string, a rich value or *identification of* a related description.
This is completely changing the model. The identifier of a (related)
description is not the same thing as the (related) description.
Personally, I'd be happy to delete the clause "and is therefore not part
of the description" but I suspect that doesn't address the problem!
Pete
|