Thomas Baker wrote:
> All,
>
> The final versions of the DCSV specs are due to be published
> as DCMI Recommendations on 10 April (e.g., [1]). Each spec has a revision
> note, the last two sentences of which, as Makx points out, are
> vague and possibly misleading. I propose to replace the text:
>
> As of 1995, the DCMI Abstract Model supports the
> representation of complex structures, such as those encoded in
> DCSV-syntax-based encoding schemes, as "related descriptions".
> The DCMI Usage Board encourages implementers to consider the
> longer-term consequences for interoperability of packaging
> structured information in parsable DCSV-encoded string
> values as opposed to conveying that information in related
> descriptions using other syntax encodings.
>
> With:
>
> As of 2005, the DCMI Abstract Model supports the
> representation of complex structures as "related
> descriptions". The DCMI Usage Board encourages
> implementers to express such structures using related
> descriptions instead of packaging that information in
> DCSV-encoded string values. Descriptions based on the DCMI
> Abstract Model are more likely to be interoperable over
> the longer term than descriptions using DCSV-syntax-based
> specifications.
>
> I would appreciate your comments or approval ASAP.
In the first version, the first sentence qualified "complex structures"
with "such as those....."; in the revised version that qualification has
been removed, and that might be read as saying that _any_ "complex
structure" might be represented using a (or more than one?) "related
description"? I'm really not sure we want to say that. I don't think I
want to take a position on whether it's true or not without some more
thought - but anyway, I think the focus in this context is on the
(actually, relatively non-complex!) structures that DCSV supports.
Also I don't think "string values" is quite right? The values (in the
DCAM sense) aren't the strings. I think it should probably say
"DCSV-encoded value strings" or just "DCSV-encoded strings"?
Maybe something like:
As of 2005, the DCMI Abstract Model supports the
construct of "related descriptions". The DCMI Usage Board
encourages implementers to consider the use of related
descriptions instead of packaging information in
DCSV-encoded strings. Descriptions based on the DCMI
Abstract Model are more likely to be interoperable over
the longer term than descriptions using DCSV-syntax-based
specifications.
Or does that first sentence need some expansion on "related description"?
Pete
--
Pete Johnston
Research Officer (Interoperability)
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
|