Tom,
As far as I am concerned, the current syntax guidelines should be
deprecated once the DCMI specification is finalised. I wonder if Pete
could comment on that statement, as he authored the original guidelines.
Julie
Thomas Baker wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
--
Julie Allinson <[log in to unmask]>
Digital Library Manager
University Library & Archives, J.B. Morrell Library
University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK
tel: ++44 (0) 1904 434083 skype: j.allinson
web: http://www.york.ac.uk/services/library/elibrary/digitallibrary.htm
--
|