 |
 |
Hi all, Here are some comments on [1]. I'm sorry I haven't had time to read the recent discussion on this list, so these issues may already be noted. I believe there are serious issues with [1] that require major revision before publication as a DCMI recommendation. In a nutshell, DCMI needs an *abstract syntax* and not an "abstract model". My suggestions are: 1. Separate Syntax from Semantics A clear distinction must be made between an *abstract syntax* for DCMI metadata, and a *semantics* for DCMI metadata. DCMI should seek to define an *abstract syntax* for DCMI metadata within a separate document. This document should also contain examples of how to map concrete syntaxes (such as DC-XML) to the abstract syntax. This would provide a framework for achieving *syntactic interoperability* which is a primary goal, and which may be achieved without any consideration for the semantics. DCMI should define the semantics of DCMI metadata entirely in terms of a mapping from a DCMI abstract syntax to RDF graphs. This could be done within a separate document, or as part of the abstract syntax document. 2. Define Rules for Merging Metadata The DCMI must provide a definition of the correct process for *merging* DCMI metadata descriptions and description sets. This definition should be given entirely in terms of the definition for merging RDF graphs provided in [2] and [3] (and thus will make use of the defition of the mapping between the DCMI abstract syntax and RDF graphs). 3. Define Valid Inference Processes The DCMI must define valid inference processes for DCMI metadata. These valid inference processes should be given entirely by the model-theoretic semantics for RDF/S [3] via a mapping from the DCMI abstract syntax to RDF graphs. - Summary The DCMI must address the following goals in order: A. Provide a framework for syntactic interoperability of DCMI metadata. B. Define correct procedures for merging DCMI metadata. C. Define valid inference processes for DCMI metadata. Of course, as the saying goes, one should put one's foot where their mouth is. So I have tried to draft a normative-style document that achieves these goals, with the minimum amount of duplication and unnecessary definition, see: http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/dcmi/syntax/index.htm l I hope that's helpful. Yours, Alistair. [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ -- Alistair Miles Research Associate CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Building R1 Room 1.60 Fermi Avenue Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman Email: [log in to unmask] Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440