Dear Alessandra,
This proposed change does not invalidate the use of your own AP in the
context of your own application. There may be a need to create a
mapping to an export format if you wanted to export your data for use in
another application or for another purpose. I would not recommend that
you make any changes to your AP in the short term while this issue is
being considered. The European Library (TEL) AP is also based on DC-Lib
so we too will have to consider what to do about the MODS elements in
due course.
If the proposal is accepted it will be a task for the Libraries WG to
find, or propose replacements for these terms, in which case you could
adopt them at that point. Ideally we would like to find them in other
namespaces that follow the same model as DC or propose them to DCMI for
inclusion in that namespace. We have to accept that this whole area is
one where understanding is still evolving and changes will still need to
happen.
I would be interested to know if you have created an XML schema for your
AP.
You ask about the DC-MODS crosswalk: as I see it, this shows the
semantic equivalencies of terms in the two namespaces and indicates
places where an implementer may need to make a decsion if the match is
imperfect. I think that is all that mappings of this sort are meant to
do. It is not a schema or a conversion tool.
Thank you for raisng these issues which I am sure will be of interest to
other implementers.
Regards,
Robina
-----Original Message-----
From: DC-Libraries Working Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Alessandra Bianchi
Sent: 15 September 2006 09:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DC-Lib - proposal regarding MODS elements
Dear DC-Lib metadata engineers,
I'm a simple (dummy?) DCAP implementor, and it comes to me as a bad news
to learn about the forthcoming "divorce" of DC-Lib from MODS.
My AP is made up from these 2 mixed&matched! In fact, for my purposes
(multilingual single-author bibliography/repository) I have included in
my AP even more mods elements than the 3 in DC-Lib...
I understand the theoretical reasons for Robina's proposal, and I myself
have met the difficulty of mods "terms containment", and have such
things as:
mods.originInfo.edition
which are clearly incorrect, say, in contrast - regarding the general
DC structure and principles.
So what to do now for my metadata?
Should I look for "replacement terms" in another namespace? Which?
Should I wait for the creation of new DCMI terms ?
Should I simply convert all mods elements in locally defined elements,
declaring in the "similar to" comment the semantic-only identity with
the "original" mods?
From another point of view, the question comes to me: what about the
entire crosswalk mods-DC, if the mods elements are simply not the same
thing of the DC elements? Is the crosswalk only "semantic", regardless
of the structure underlying the 2 models?
alessandra (bianchi), bergamo (italy)
**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*************************************************************************
|