I, for one, as Architecture forum cochair-on-parental-leave and
co-author of DCAM and main author of the DSP draft, am very much
interested in these developments.
I have been sketching on a replacement of the current DCAM, substituting
a much leaner version directly building on the RDF model while retaining
the same external interface. I've called this DCAM 2.0, and the latest
sketch is here:
As for the DSP model, I've explicitly stated in recent (err...)
Architecture Forum teleconferences that I believe the DSP model needs
implementation experience before taking it forward.
I'm very much hoping that feedback from ePrints/SWAP, RDA and Karen, and
eventually LOM and ISO MLR will help shape an updated draft of the DSP
model. The model as it stands is a theoretical construct, and needs
exactly the kind of development testing that is happening right now to
my great delight!
So, to summarize (from my mostly AFK vacation): you're absolutely right,
and I believe that's the plan...
Maybe Tom can fill in from a DC perspective?
tor 2009-08-06 klockan 12:47 -0700 skrev Stuart Sutton:
> First, I want to thank Karen Coyle for both her persistence here on the DC-Architecture list with asking questions around implementation patterns for the DSP. If the DSP specification is to gain any traction with implementers, some set of community vetted patterns are sorely needed to augment the very slim DSP documentation . I, for one, have certainly bookmarked Karen's patterns page on the DCMI/RDA Task Group Wiki  and look forward to her integration of new patterns stemming from recent posts with Pete (and others). I trust that there might be some means explored by DCMI for maintaining and augmenting such supplemental documentation--even if that documentation is not prescriptive.
> Also, I have been wondering about DCMI's intention (or lack thereof) around the future evolution of both the Abstract Model and the DSP specification. Personally, I think (and I do not believe I am alone in this sentiment) that the AP and the DSP are the most significant direct contributions of DCMI to the metadata community since basic work finished on the core. So, I am interested in knowing whether DCMI considers the AP/DSP work to be finished or whether these specifications will evolve as the metadata community implements and learns about the strengths and weaknesses of the specifications. Even though I am an Advisory Board member, I am somewhat uncertain where this question should be addressed to trigger some kind of definitive answer--to the Executive, to the Advisory or Usage boards, or to the Architecture Forum? I am concerned that as significant uses of the DSP are attempted, DCMI has in place a mechanism for gathering input from the community of practice and moving forward in a positive manner with the evolution of these significant DCMI contributions. Any light that can be cast on this issue would be greatly appreciated by me.
>  http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/
>  http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/apDesigns
> Stuart Sutton
> Associate Professor & Chair,
> MLIS Degree Program
> The Information School
> Mary Gates Hall, Suite 370
> Box: 352840
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA 98195-2840
<[log in to unmask]>
Varning! E-post till och från Sverige, eller som passerar servrar i
Sverige, avlyssnas av Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA.
WARNING! E-mail to and from Sweden, or via servers in Sweden, is
monitored by the National Defence Radio Establishment.