On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Thomas Baker wrote:
> I agree with Rachel that additional discussion of implications
> would help, but I also agree with Mikael that the document
> is already a big large. Based on Mikael's text, perhaps we
> could add, as a final paragraph:
>
> The addition of domains and ranges will help clarify
> the semantics of DCMI properties in a formal sense. It
> should be noted, however, that this will have practical
> consequences only for the creation and interpretation of
> DC-in-RDF metadata. Metadata creators will need to add
> a few extra angle brackets to ensure that RDF-consuming
> applications interpret value strings as properties of
> nodes; and metadata consumers may need to "special-case"
> the processing of value strings associated directly with
> Dublin Core properties (i.e., without intervening nodes).
> In sum, the generation of DC-in-RDF metadata would become
> slightly more complex (if done by hand), but the current
> ambiguity would be eliminated, enabling metadata that is
> mappable more consistently to the DCAM and improved support
> by tools thanks to machine-processable restrictions.
>
> The expression of Dublin Core metadata in other syntaxes --
> e.g., HTML, XHTML, XML Schema and other schema languages
> -- will not be negatively affected by these developments.
> The rules for interpreting metadata in these syntaxes in
> terms of the DCAM are simpler than for RDF, as they are
> not bound by the semantics of RDF.
>
> Hmm, a bit long... Rachel, does that address your questions?
Yes, although I think this should come near the top, rather than at end of
document...
Rachel
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
> Director, Specifications and Documentation
> Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN, University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 386724
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk
|