On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:05:50AM +0100, Julie Allinson wrote:
> >>The following links are now up and working.
> >>
> >>http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile
> >>http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile?action=DSP2XML
...
> Yes, for those reviewing compliance against the Description Set Profile,
> these documents should be used. The first is a human-readably version,
> the second is an XML rendering. Both documents replicate all of the
> content in the original application profile document [1] but with
> additional constraints such as min & max occurences, literal/non-literal
> etc. The original application profile document was created before the
> DSP so didn't contain this information.
Julie,
I would also like to re-confirm current TG thinking on
the status of the Eprint-specific syntax guidelines for the
purposes of this Usage Board review. Will the SWAP community
continue to point to these syntax guidelines until they are
replaced by a DCMI specification? Some of the issues with
regard to [3] are known and have been discussed elsewhere.
Is there somewhere a summary of that discussion that we should
consider in the review?
Please have a look at the questions in [1, see also below]
and let Stefanie and me know whether the review outline at
[2] is going in the right direction.
Tom
[1] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0807&L=dc-usage&P=907
[2] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ReviewSyntaxGuidelines
[3] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML
> Before we proceed further, several issues for discussion:
>
> -- We would like to confirm that our job is simply to review
> whether the guidelines or formats "appear to support" the
> constructs in the description set profile (and not to
> attempt any further validation).
>
> -- We note that the review criteria (excerpted below) say
> nothing about checking whether URIs are being encoded
> well - an important but potentially complex issue.
>
> -- What is the current position of the SWAP editors on the
> status of the Eprint Syntax Guidelines reviewed in [8]?
> SWAP already supports DCAM transparently, to the point of
> using DC-TEXT in its examples, so presumably the future
> DC-XML guidelines could be substituted here.
>
> -- The Guidelines support Rich Representations, a construct
> deprecated in the latest DCAM, even though the description
> set profile does not explicitly cite it. However, the
> task is to check whether the constructs in [5] are supported
> in [2] -- not to compare [2] to DCAM.
>
> Tom and Stefanie
>
> [1] http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/ApplicationProfiles/ProfileReviewCriteriaDe#Syntax_Guidelines
> [2] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML
> [3] http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/ApplicationProfiles/ProfileReviewCriteriaDe
> [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-text/
> [5] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Scholarly_Works_Application_Profile
> [6] http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile
> [7] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML
> [8] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ReviewSyntaxGuidelines
--
Dr. Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
|