Titia van der Werf wrote:
> I have one question concerning the example given:
>
> <? xml version="1.0" ?>
> <RDF xmlns = "http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax#"
> xmlns:DC = "http://metadata.net/dc/#"
> xmlns:ADMIN = "http://metadata.net/admin/#" >
> <Description xml:lang="en"
> about = "http://metadata.net/admin/elements.html">
> <DC:Title> Admin Core Metadata Element Specification </DC:Title>
> <DC:Creator> Crystal, Jacky </DC:Creator>
> <DC:Date> 1998-01-01 </DC:Date>
>
>
> <ADMIN:CreatorCorporate> Rubble Corp <ADMIN:CreatorCorporate>
> <ADMIN:CreatorEmail> [log in to unmask] </ADMIN:CreatorEmail>
> <ADMIN:DateCreated> 1998-01-15 </ADMIN:DateCreated>
> <ADMIN:DateValidFrom> 1998-02-01 </ADMIN:DateValidFrom>
> <ADMIN:DateValidTo > 1999-02-01 </ADMIN:DateValidTo>
> </Description>
> </RDF>
>
> How can you be sure that the admin-set relates to the DC-set? is it enough
> that both are within the same <Description> </Description> tag? Or should
> the DC-set contain a Relation tag with a pointer to the ADMIN-set and vice
> versa should the ADMIN-tag contain a Relation-tag pointing to the DC-set?
Excellent question. I would assert, in the above example both vocabularies
(DC and ADMIN) are begin used to describe the resource located at
http://metadata.net/admin/elements.html. I may be wrong, but I don't believe
this is what the authors intended (Ren, Debbie?). If the desire is to
describe a description (e.g. in this case associate the "administrative"
information with the "descriptive" information) , the following would
accomplish this:
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<RDF xmlns = "http://www.w3.org/TR/Rec-rdf-syntax"
xmlns:DC = "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/"
xmlns:ADMIN = "http://metadata.net/admin#">
<Description xml:lang="en" about = "http://metadata.net/admin/elements.html"
bagid = "mydescription">
<DC:Title> Admin Core Metadata Element Specification </DC:Title>
<DC:Creator> Crystal, Jacky </DC:Creator>
<DC:Date> 1998-01-01 </DC:Date>
</Description>
<Description about = "mydescription">
<ADMIN:CreatorCorporate> Rubble Corp </ADMIN:CreatorCorporate>
<ADMIN:CreatorEmail> [log in to unmask] </ADMIN:CreatorEmail>
<ADMIN:DateCreated> 1998-01-15 </ADMIN:DateCreated>
<ADMIN:DateValidFrom> 1998-02-01 </ADMIN:DateValidFrom>
<ADMIN:DateValidTo > 1999-02-01 </ADMIN:DateValidTo>
</Description>
</RDF>
In this case, an RDF bagid is used to identify a description and all of the
administrative information would apply to this set.
> If the ADMIN set is separate from the DC-set you'll need a pointer anyway.
> So I guess you need to add an element Relation to the ADMIN-set.
Right. The Bearman, et.al. paper provides a suggestion on how (and why) one
might want to associate the DC description with its associated administrative
metadata, however, the above example is intentionally directional from the
ADMIN to the DC set.
--
Eric Miller mailto:[log in to unmask]
Research Scientist http://purl.oclc.org/net/eric
Office of Research phone:614.764.6109
OCLC Online Computer Library Center fax:614.764.2344
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|