Strictly speaking, it isn't part of the remit of this group to cover the
description of the services which provide access to a collection. We provide
the identifier of the service (in the isAvailableVia statement)

However, it may be useful for us to offer guidance on how to represent the
fact that further information about a service is available in a document
somewhere.

Depending on the protocol implemented by the service, the service itself may
be able to provide such information (e.g. in the form of an SRU Explain
response or an OAI-PMH Identify response), or in other cases it may be
provided independently of the service.

But

(a) the identifier of the service used in the isAvailableVia statement is
not necessarily the "access point" of the service;
(b) the "access point" of the service is not necessarily the source of that
"further information".

So it would be useful to provide a URI for that further information, while
remaining fiercely agnostic on what that further information is (another DC
metadata record, a Zeerex record, a WSDL record, a human-readable Web page
about the service, a human-readable Web page about lots of services
including this one, etc)

Some options (using QNames for URIs - Service:S = URI of Service; Document:D
= URI of "further information" document):

(a) rdfs:seeAlso

Collection:C cld:isAvailableVia Service:S .
Service:S rdfs:seeAlso Document:D .

(b) dc:relation

Collection:C cld:isAvailableVia Service:S .
Service:S dc:relation Document:D .

(c) dc:description

Collection:C cld:isAvailableVia Service:S .
Service:S dc:description Document:D .

(d) (?) dcterms:isReferencedBy

Collection:C cld:isAvailableVia Service:S .
Service:S dcterms:isReferencedBy Document:D .

(e) a new refinement of dc:description?

Collection:C cld:isAvailableVia Service:S .
Service:S some:prop Document:D .


FWIW, I think:

(a) fits the definition of rdfs:seeAlso, and is fine in RDF/XML, but I'm
hesitant about where we are heading if we recommend deploying that in DC-XML

(b) fits the definition of dc:relation, but doesn't say much

(c) is OK, I think (the other document is "an account of the content of" the
service)

(d) might be OK, but feels not quite right (the other document does "refer
to" the service, but it does a bit more than that)

(e) might be best, but I'm not sure it's strictly necessary

Basically I think I'd go for either (c) or (e). Any thoughts please?

Including "No! It's not our job to get into this!", if you want! ;-)

Cheers
Pete