 |
 |
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 19:34, Roland Schwaenzl wrote: > Rachel wrote: > > > > > As I understand it there is a fundamental mis-match in the metadata model > > for IEEE LOM and DC. > > > Could you expand on this - What exactly is the fundamental mismatch? I guess this comes from a remark by me, so I'll try to answer. The DC metamodel is based on a resource-property-value model, much like RDF. LOM is based on a containment model (elements contain elements that contain elements, etc.). There is no explicit resource-property-value semantics in this model. This makes the LOM metamodel very close to the XML model. LOM therefore maps easily to XML. The mapping can essentially be made algorithmically by mapping the metamodel to XML. The same is true for the DC->RDF mapping. By mapping the metamodel constructs to RDF, the rest follows automatically (more or less). But mapping LOM to RDF, or trying to combine LOM and DC elements by aligning the LOM elements with the DC metamodel, mut be done on an element-by-element basis, as the metamodels do not match. So each element must be analyzed and mapped in an idiosyncratic way. I could give many examples from the LOM-RDF binding, but I'll stop here. /Mikael -- Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose