OK, that's fine.
But the key factor, I think, is that our decisions are driven by the description model, by deciding on the subset of the description model that is to be supported in a "minimal" format, and that we are completely clear where the "boundaries" of that subset lie - what features/constructs can be represented within that "minimal" format, and what features/constructs require the use of the "full" format.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Architecture Group on behalf of Mikael Nilsson
Sent: Tue 9/12/2006 8:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Schemas and validation
tis 2006-09-12 klockan 17:10 +0100 skrev Pete Johnston:
> Hi Ann,
[*huge* snip]
> So really I guess we need to decide whether we want an XML format that
> supports the full DCAM description model, or whether we want an XML
> format that supports some subset of it (and if so what subset), or
> whether we want both.
I think the comments we are getting on dc-xml strongly hint towards
adding a dc-xml-minimal that is essentially similar to the current
"Simple DC in RDF/XML" but with the RDF part removed and DCAM compliance
added.
/Mikael
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|