Dear all:
Listening to Misha's strong disapproval, I think it is about time to
jump in and articulate some equally strong support for what Sigfrid
has very vigorously put forward over the past few days.
Let me start be saying that I find Siggy's arguments crystal clear in
their expression and absolutely convincing in their substance. So I
have no problems with his semantics and syntax :-)
But I have the same problems with the consequences (not necessarily
the intellectual substance) of the Relations Working Group Report and
how it is related to RFC-1 and other important DC-documents.
I don't want to restate Sigfrid's arguments but rather add another
observation: It is not only that the current Relations Working Group
Report (at
http://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core/wrelationdraft.html)
stands in contradiction to both the original proposal by the Relations WG
(at http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/lists/meta2/1997/12/0046.html)
and RFC-1 (the J. Kunze et al. draft at
http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/lists/meta2/1998/02/0042.html)
(this is what I think Sigfrid is saying) but also to RFC-3 (the P.
Miller / T. Gill draft at
http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/lists/meta2/1998/02/0002.html
In the Relations Working Group Report (at
http://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core/wrelationdraft.html)
it is clearly stated:
II. Relations are indicated in Dublin Core metadata by the
Relation element. Relation has two sub-elements: Relation.Identifier
and Relation.Type
Now take a look at RFC-3 which is scheduled to be the authoritative
document on qualified DC and thus should have the final word on all
subelement issues. In this paper, RELATION is said to have not the two
sub-elements Relation.Identifier and Relation.Type (as announced in
the Relations Working Group Report) but the very ones that are reduced
to values of the type subelement in the Relations Working Group
Report.
In other word, according to the Relations Working Group Report we are
confronted with:
DC.Relation.Identifier content=some pointer such as URL
DC.Relation.Type content=IsBasedOn
And according to RFC-3 we are confronted with:
<previous subelements omitted>
DC.Relation.IsBasedOn content=some pointer such as URL
DC.Relation.IsBasisFor content=some pointer such as URL
etc.
To me this is another tension (if not serious flaw) that needs to be
resolved. And if we stick to Sigfrid's proposal to revert to the earlier
report of the Relations WG, than this tension and the syntactical
implications Sigfrid is concerned with could and would immediately be
resolved.
Cheers,
Ralf
==========http://www2.sub.uni-goettingen.de============
Dr. Ralf Schimmer
Metadaten-Projekt
Niedersaechsische Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek
D-37070 Goettingen
Tel: +49 551 395230 / Fax: +49 551 393199
[log in to unmask]
|