On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 13:30 +0000, Andy Powell wrote:
> As an example, what I think Mikael has done with his RDF version of LOM is
> to re-declare the LOM 'elements' as RDF properties using a different
> namespace URI. These LOM/RDF properties become usable in DC descriptions
> in a way that the original XML Qnames used in LOM/XML instances are not.
Yes, this is what I did. In the original version I even mentioned that
the binding was "dc-compatible", i.e. compatible with the then
non-existent DCAM :-)
Note that to use the URIs defined in the RDF version of LOM in an XML
DCAP would be strange, to say the least, as it would be in conflict with
the LOM XML binding. Unfortunately there is currently no solution to
this conflict.
I think the lesson here is that the DCAM is pretty useful, or indeed
absolutely essential, and that the corresponding AMs of METS and LOM
(the hierarchical models) are actually not as useful.
An external entity that defines its terms so that they comply with the
DCAM *OR* RDFS are actually on the safe side, METS and LOM do
neither :-(
/Mikael
|