 |
 |
Tom, As far as I am concerned, the current syntax guidelines should be deprecated once the DCMI specification is finalised. I wonder if Pete could comment on that statement, as he authored the original guidelines. Julie Thomas Baker wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:05:50AM +0100, Julie Allinson wrote: > >>>> The following links are now up and working. >>>> >>>> http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile >>>> http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile?action=DSP2XML >>>> > ... > >> Yes, for those reviewing compliance against the Description Set Profile, >> these documents should be used. The first is a human-readably version, >> the second is an XML rendering. Both documents replicate all of the >> content in the original application profile document [1] but with >> additional constraints such as min & max occurences, literal/non-literal >> etc. The original application profile document was created before the >> DSP so didn't contain this information. >> > > Julie, > > I would also like to re-confirm current TG thinking on > the status of the Eprint-specific syntax guidelines for the > purposes of this Usage Board review. Will the SWAP community > continue to point to these syntax guidelines until they are > replaced by a DCMI specification? Some of the issues with > regard to [3] are known and have been discussed elsewhere. > Is there somewhere a summary of that discussion that we should > consider in the review? > > Please have a look at the questions in [1, see also below] > and let Stefanie and me know whether the review outline at > [2] is going in the right direction. > > Tom > > [1] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0807&L=dc-usage&P=907 > [2] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ReviewSyntaxGuidelines > [3] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML > > >> Before we proceed further, several issues for discussion: >> >> -- We would like to confirm that our job is simply to review >> whether the guidelines or formats "appear to support" the >> constructs in the description set profile (and not to >> attempt any further validation). >> >> -- We note that the review criteria (excerpted below) say >> nothing about checking whether URIs are being encoded >> well - an important but potentially complex issue. >> >> -- What is the current position of the SWAP editors on the >> status of the Eprint Syntax Guidelines reviewed in [8]? >> SWAP already supports DCAM transparently, to the point of >> using DC-TEXT in its examples, so presumably the future >> DC-XML guidelines could be substituted here. >> >> -- The Guidelines support Rich Representations, a construct >> deprecated in the latest DCAM, even though the description >> set profile does not explicitly cite it. However, the >> task is to check whether the constructs in [5] are supported >> in [2] -- not to compare [2] to DCAM. >> >> Tom and Stefanie >> >> [1] http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/ApplicationProfiles/ProfileReviewCriteriaDe#Syntax_Guidelines >> [2] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML >> [3] http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/ApplicationProfiles/ProfileReviewCriteriaDe >> [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-text/ >> [5] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Scholarly_Works_Application_Profile >> [6] http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile >> [7] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML >> [8] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ReviewSyntaxGuidelines >> > > -- Julie Allinson <[log in to unmask]> Digital Library Manager University Library & Archives, J.B. Morrell Library University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK tel: ++44 (0) 1904 434083 skype: j.allinson web: http://www.york.ac.uk/services/library/elibrary/digitallibrary.htm --