On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 05:02:51PM +0200, Mikael Nilsson wrote:
> > > > http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCRDFTaskforce/DCRDFExecutiveSummary3
> > > >
> > > > If we could finalize this basic explanation by next Monday,
> > > > it could be included in the documentation packet for the DCMI
> > > > Board of Trustees meeting in late April.
> > >
> > > Apart from the fact that this is a fair bit longer than I was imagining,
> > > it's a fairly good summary :-)
> >
> > I agree it is a good summary,
:-)
> > I am just wondering as it is an 'executive
> > summary' whether the benefits, with some very brief scenarios, should be
> > given more emphasis?
>
> I agree that would be useful. I think this might fit into a longer
> document, though, as the summary is already a bit long...
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?
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
|