On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 07:46:20PM +0100, Pete Johnston wrote:
> 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.
Good point.
> 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.
Right.
> 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
> 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"?
How about:
As of 2005, the DCMI Abstract Model supports the
construct "related description" as a method for
describing value entities such as a persons or,
indeed, time periods or locations in space. The DCMI
Usage Board encourages implementers to consider using
related descriptions as an alternative to packaging
descriptive 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.
Is the transition to the final sentence clear (i.e., that by
"descriptions" are meant the "related descriptions")?
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
> descriptions instead of packaging information in
|