Tom said:
> Figure 2 gets this wrong - presumably a typo
> (s/Vocabulary/Syntax/ in lower left corner).
Oops, yes, thanks. Image needs fixing.
> > - 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.
That reference should be to "value strings", though, not "string
values". So we could maybe say
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 in which each statement
contains a value string.
or something like that? I'm not sure this is strictly necessary though?
Does it add something significant?
Comments on other comments to follow separately...
Pete
