I've updated the amended version of the profile document, to incorporate
examples covering the various areas Julian identified as potentially
unclear, and renumber all the examples accordingly.
This draft is currently still on my server space at
http://www.incognitum.net/petej/projects/dc/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html
/
The relative URIs for the examples are wrong but should resolve OK on
dublincore.org see e.g.
http://www.incognitum.net/petej/projects/dc/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html
/ex01/
Note that these changes are all just clarifications, and none of these
changes alter the "semantics" of the profile; there is no change to the
behaviour of the GRDDL transform, the same RDF triples/DCAM statements
are generated.
Currently, the profile URI is the URI of the document: there is no
distinction made between the profile and the document describing it.
It seems to me there are three options for publishing this update:
1. Publish this doc as the current profile with errata i.e. republish
this content as http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/
Advantage: No change for users i.e. the authors of X/HTML docs continue
to use profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/"
Disadvantage: It may be felt that the changes to the content, and the
addition of new examples, are more extensive than should be treated as
"errata".
2. Publish as new profile i.e. publish new doc as
http://dublincore.org/documents/2009/08/10/dc-html/ to replace
http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/
Advantage: Makes distinction in content clear
Disadvantage: We end up with two profiles with the same "semantics", new
"replacing" the old when there is no change in the behaviour. Authors
don't really need to change their docs for technical reasons, but may
wish do so to in order to be seen to be "using the latest version". i.e.
to use profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2009/08/10/dc-html/"
instead of profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/"
3. Introduce a distinction between the "profile" and the "profile
document" which describes it, with two distinct URIs e.g. use a new
date-stamped PURL for the profile URI, say,
http://purl.org/dc/profile/2009/08/10/dc-html/ and publish a new profile
document as as http://dublincore.org/documents/2009/08/10/dc-html/ (to
replace http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/) with the
profile URI (PURL) redirecting to the (new) profile document URI i.e. to
use profile="http://purl.org/dc/profile/2009/08/10/dc-html/" instead of
profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/"
Advantage: Makes distinction in content clear. Enables versioning of
profile and profile document independently.
Disadvantage: As with (2), we end up with two profiles with the same
"semantics", new "replacing" the old when there is no change in the
behaviour. Authors don't really need to change their docs for technical
reasons, but may wish do so to in order to be seen to be "using the
latest version".
It seems to me (1) is the most straightforward, both for DCMI and for
users (and it's how I've written the current draft above).
But I can see an argument for doing (3): it creates some "pain" now, and
adds some complexity for managing stuff, but also enables more
flexibility for the future.
(2) seems the least useful of the three approaches.
My own suggestion would be to do either (1) or (3), but any thoughts are
welcome.
Pete
---
Pete Johnston
Technical Researcher, Eduserv
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474323
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/research/people/petejohnston/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/
|