On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> First of all, I like the terminology you propose... is the following
> what I understand you to say?
Basically yes. Now, this is NOT about syntax. This is about being able
to produce functional specifications for syntaxes. It is always
possible to transform metadata in the compact form into the extended
form, but the reverse operation is not always possible. The proof is
left as en exercise to the reader ;-)
>
> compact form: unqualified and conventions for simple
> qualifications; metadata suitable for embedding in HTML
Yes, this is a form of line based Dublin Core, which suitable for any syntax
which does not support nesting. A line based syntax can theoretically
support grouping, since lines can be grouped into paragraphs.
Simple example:
DC.Relation.IsBasedOn: (SCHEME=ULRL) http://foo.bar.com
> extended form: potentially rich metadata, the structural
> requirements for which are supported in RDF
Again yes. This is Dublin Core for any syntax which in addition to
grouping also supports nesting. Typical examples would be RDF and GRS-1
in Z39.50
Simple example:
<relation> http://foo.bar.com
<type> IsBasedOn </type>
<scheme> URL </scheme>
</relation>
Please note that this comes from Z39.50. The strings inside < and >
are from Z39.50 tagset-G or tagset-M). I could have taken an example
from RDF, but since I haven't implemented it yet, I don't fully
understand it.
>
> I've been casting about for a better terminology than qualified versus
> unqualified. Anyone see any problem with this?
>
> OK... that's the easy part.
>
> Siggy... You propose, I believe, a basis for a compromise between the
> two position. Can you write up a synopsis highlighting them and put it
> out for discussion? ( I'm sorry to ask you to re-say what's been said,
> but articulating the two positions side by side in a concise fashion may
> help.).
Rather, I propose a mechanism making it possible for the two positions
to coexist. I'll return to your request in a second mail to this
forum. However, our failure to realize that there are two forms has
put us in a slightly awkward situation: Two other initiatives (Z39.50
attribute architecture group and W3C RDF group) are currently doing
the thinking on the extended forms for us without a functional
specification from this forum.
Siggy
|