 |
 |
[Sorry, slightly delayed response to previous thread about whether 'simple DC' can be considered as an application profile or not.] On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Pete Johnston wrote: > Looking at [2], I can see that this "political" dimension is embedded in > the definition of "application profile" used there > > > schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more > namespaces, combined > > together by implementors, and optimised for a particular local > application > > Actually I don't think I had fully registered the presence of "by > implementors" until I looked at this just now! I'm not sure how one could apply this "by implementors, and optimised for a particular local application" distinction in practice? Most things (perhaps everything?) in DC are done by implementors. What does 'local' mean? Are the DC-Education, DC-Government and DC-Libraries application profiles 'local'? I don't want to shock anyone, but the document containing the proposed definition of Simple DC was written "by implementors, for implementors" :-) > I guess I'm arguing for a more "functional" view: it's the "drawing", > "combining" and "optimising" which are the significant considerations, > rather than whether that drawing/combining/optimising is being done by a > standards body or an implementor. Yes, agreed. Andy -- Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933 Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/