 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Wed Feb 6 13:02 MET 2002 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > X-Scanner: exiscan *16YQml-000MUV-00*Qv/N0wcTpO2* (Manchester Computing, > University of Manchester) > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:02:45 GMT1BST > From: Ann Apps <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Guidelines for implementing Dublin Core in XML > To: [log in to unmask] > > > 1. On the subject of interoperability, the place my applications > need to be interoperable is when supplying Z39.50 search results > in XML/DC conforming to the Bath Profile. This specifies using the > CIMI XML DTD for simple DC, which is not the same as the > XML/DC included in these guidelines. I am not suggesting DC > follow the CIMI DTD, but maybe something should be said about it > in this document? I've never seen CIMI XML DTD for DC. Could you supply a ref? > > It seems that by making this recommendation you have promoted > all the element refinements to be top-level elements in their own > right. I guess my problem is that I tend to view the world in an > object-oriented and/or hierarchical fashion, which is probably why I > have difficulty in appreciating RDF (could be why many others are > going with XML rather than RDF). ??? > Elsewhere (not in this document) > I've also seen 'dctype:Collection' which is promoting values of the > DCMI Type list to elements in their own right as well. This may be > all OK given namespaces, but I wonder if there has been DCMI > consensus on this. You want xml-schema bound metadata not using namespaces? > However, I then notice something in the > Schemas Examples document called 'Unqualified DC' which > includes 'top-level' elements in the dcterms namespace, which > implies there is a hierarchy within dcterms. So I'm feeling confused! The relations themselves are given by the underlying DCMI recommendations on elements, qualifiers (what refines what), and Usage Board decisions on new terms such as audience. [When you look at the dcterms RDF schema - there the hierarchical relations are "coded" explicitly.] > > 3. Recomendation 7. An encoding schemes namespace has been > introduced called 'dcxml'. I've not seen this before. I understand > why it's needed, because the name 'scheme' needs to be pinned > down. I'm not sure, whether it is "needed". The draft proposes it. > But I'm not too sure about the name. I know it's just an > identifier but calling it 'dcxml' seems to preclude it's use elsewhere > (at least to human readers), eg in HTML. Don't use it in HTML-Meta tag implementations! The current draft does NOT address such implementations. Maybe this should be stated in the next version of the draft to prevent misinterpretation. > Maybe something to > imply it's defining the DC qualifiers schemes or attributes (in the > XML sense) dcattr? (Though I later noted that the dcxml.xsd > schema includes other things, but still about qualifiers/refinements.) > > 4. Recommendation 9. > Maybe something should be said about where the xml:lang > attribute has appeared from, even if it is standard XML. I think there > should be some indication of which language scheme is > recommended. xml:lang comes with a value list you MUST choose from. > There appears to be some inconsistency. The > examples show "en", but at the end of the bullet list of 5.1 it says > "en-GB". > > 5. The example schemas are very useful. Dare I bring up the > subject of DTDs?! Is there any plan to add example ones? I don't > believe DTDs are dead yet, and some applications require one. > > 6. I had some problems reading the schemas and examples via the > web links from the page - I had to save them locally and then read > as text files. I realise that this is a Netscape problem, but I think > that DC documents should be generally readable. Maybe an HTML- > readable version could be at the end of the hypertext links (or just > .txt would help). > > 7. In dc:xsd, the specification of the language attribute is 'x:lang'. I > would have expected this to be 'xml:lang' but maybe there's some > reason I don't understand. > > 8. The distinction between simple, unqualified and qualified is not > immediately obvious, especially as 'simple' and 'unqualified' are > sometimes used as synonymous. I can see why it's been made. It > is caused by the fact that 'audience' is in dcterms, the rest of > which is element refinements. ...and encoding schemes and...(what may come) > > 9. Could you think of a better name for dc11q.xsd? I suppose it's > meant to suggest DC 1.1 + qualifiers, but it looks more like '11'! > > Hope this helps, > Ann > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mrs. Ann Apps. Senior Analyst - Research & Development, MIMAS, > University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK > Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 0161 275 6040 > Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >