 |
 |
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:10:02PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote: > >The "Application Profile" part of the Singapore Framework [1] ends with "data > >formats" -- serializations of a Description Set Profile that is based on DCAM > >that, in turn, is based on RDF. In other words, the "end result" of applying > >the Singapore Framework is a model and serialization format for DCAM-conformant > >metadata. > > Yes, but the application profile section includes "functional > requirements" "Domain model" and "usage guidelines." The document > seems to assume that functional requirements and usage guidelines > are text (at least I read it that way) and the domain model's > definition includes: > > "The domain model can be expressed using just text or using a more > formal approach such as UML." > > Even UML is a document. So what I'm asking is whether we are > considering that the DSP should make reference to these documents? > If not, then would we consider providing a more formal best practice > for the documentation of these (important) aspects of the > application profile? I see what you're saying. Every DSP can (or should) have metadata about itself -- who wrote it, when, etc -- so the DSP could also point to documentation of the domain model, functional requirements, etc. An AP for describing an AP :-) A good idea. > In other words, the way I read the Singapore Framework document, the > DSP is only one part of an application profile. Are we considering > the entire application profile? or just the DSP? Because elements > like usage guidelines will NOT generally be encoded in the DSP, they > will be beyond its ken. Right. A DSP is just the technical specification of a Description Set. [...] > Prior actually to creating the above documents, there is nothing in > HTML that would provide a "restriction on order" for those > paragraphs, although it does define restrictions on the order of > opening and closing of tags. I can create any number of different > orders mixing paragraphs and headings within an HTML document. > > Do you think that DCAM should address this type of order within > instance documents? (Sorry, I don't know what else to call this.) If > so, then it will address the "ISBD problem" and the "MARC problem" > and, even, the "HTML problem." If a DSP is a set of templates with specified constraints -- a Description Set template, which encloses one or more Description Templates, each of which encloses one or more Statement Templates, each of which is described with various Resource, Property, and Value constraints, it is not immediately clear to my why one _couldn't_ simply say that the order of templates described in that Description Set Profile document is meaningful. When serializing that DSP to RDF triples, the order would be lost. But when serializing to another document format, such as XML, or to an ISBD Publication String, I see no reason the order could not be retained. Tom -- Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>