On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:39:12PM +0000, Andy Powell wrote: > A revised, and hopefully final, version of the Abstract Model working > draft is at > > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/abstract-model/ It's generally looking great! Some mostly minor comments follow... > - It would be better if we modelled 'syntax encoding scheme URI' and > 'vocabulary encoding scheme URI' as separate entities in the model. Figure 2 gets this wrong - presumably a typo (s/Vocabulary/Syntax/ in lower left corner). > - Does the model get the definitions of simple DC and qualified DC right? I like the implicit acknowledgement that there is no firm consensus on this. However, the text says: in general terms, the phrase 'simple DC' is used to refer to DC metadata that does not make any use of encoding schemes and element refinements. But then the table says that both types of Value Dumb-down result in a "new value string". If this is the case, then the text above should perhaps say something like: in general terms, the phrase 'simple DC' is used to refer to DC metadata that does not make any use of encoding schemes and element refinements and has string values. > Of these, there was quite a long discussion around the meanings of simple > DC and qualified DC. No consensus was reached. We therefore agreed to > remove definitions of these terms from the Abstract Model. I think that the way you mention them without defining them too precisely is fine -- and better than not mentioning them at all. A few other points: -- It is not crystal clear that "descriptions" is shorthand for "DCMI metadata descriptions". This could be fixed by adding "descriptions" in italics and parentheses when they are first mentioned: The abstract model of the _resources_ being described by DCMI metadata descriptions (_descriptions_) is as follows: -- It was not clear to me why the following point is necessary: Each _property_URI_ may be repeated in multiple _statements_. It seems vaguely confusing... -- either requiring more explanation, or (I suspect) unnecessary. -- I'm slightly bothered by the wording that a string or a rich value "is a representation of" the resource. Maybe I'm reading "representation of" a bit too literally, but to me the words evoke something like a visual depiction. For example, a portrait photograph can be "a representation of" Andy Powell. For me, a wording like the following would not have the same associations: Each... string stands for the resource... Each rich value... is some text... that stands for the resource... -- I find myself stumbling over the sentence: "Note that where the _resource_ is the _value_ of a _property_, the _class_ is referred to as a _vocabulary_encoding_scheme_." Coming right after a sentence talking about resources that are subjects of DCMI metadata descriptions, one can read it as saying that "when the subject of a description is the value of a property...". Maybe break into a separate point and clarify the wording. -- I do not understand the reference to DC XML namespaces in: "Note that software should make use of the DCMI term declarations represented in RDF schema language and the DC XML namespaces to automate...". -- I do not understand the sentence: "Note that the abstract model does not indicate that the combination of a DCTERMS URI syntax encoding scheme with a value string implies a value URI or resource URI." I think you mean to say something like: Note that the abstract model does not indicate that a value string associated with the syntax encoding scheme http://purl.org/dc/terms/URI does not imply a value URI. Not sure about the reference to "resource URI" here... -- do you mean a "value URI" that is then also a "resource URI" of a "related description"? -- Instead of "1:1 principle", maybe "one-to-one principle"? -- "The value of the DC Date Property is a point in time" -- can a range of dates be considered a point in time? I may have one or two more comments in awhile. Tom -- Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask] Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352 Personal email: [log in to unmask]