i think you e-mailed the wrong person
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda 2000
> The strategy that I used when I built POINT, BOX and PERIOD was that
> "structured values" or "value components" could be accommodated by a
"scheme".
> In XML Schema Definition Language terminology, this is equivalent to
allowing
> schemes or notations to have "ComplexType"s as well as SimpleType's.
> Up until that time, while DCMI people had been comfortable with schemes
that
> that defined "SimpleType"s - mostly of the lexical pattern variety - they
had
> not really yet got their heads around the idea that a node might have
sub-nodes
> (components or structured values) while still remaining a node!
> I guess the subsequent stablisation of the XSDL spec
> lends some credence to the general approach.
>
> The DCSV scheme was merely a general purpose syntax that supported one
layer of
> sub-nodes while avoiding character entities likely to cause trouble in the
context of HTML.
> But I was careful to define POINT, BOX and PERIOD in terms of their
semantics
> first, with syntax suggestions second (both DCSV-based and also simple
XML).
>
>
> Andrew Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Sigge
> >
> > I am in total agreement with your points 6 and 7. I, too, would like to
> > revisit the whole question of structured values (value components). I
have
> > heard that there is a proposal to adopt structured values for other
elements
> > (Coverage?) although it has been rejected for the agent elements. But
surely
> > the conceptual model adopted for qualifiers must apply to the whole of
the
> > DCMES, not just selected elements?
> >
> > Andrew Wilson
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask]
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Sigfrid
> > > Lundberg, Lub NetLab
> > > Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2000 3:30
> > > To: DCMI Architecture WG
> > > Subject: Agenda 2000
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear DC architects!
> > >
> > > At the DC-8 workshop in Ottawa, we had an open brain storming session
> > > the last day. The discussion was meant for setting the DCMI Agenda for
> > > the coming year. I got the Agenda 2000 entries from Stu Weibel the
> > > other day.
> > >
> > > I'd like to have your opinions on them, and whether we need to worry
> > > about them. Having removed points which didn't seem to be
> > > "architectural", this is what I have left:
> > >
> > > 1. External linking conventions
> > >
> > > 2. Use the new paradigms available in XML such as hierarchy
> > >
> > > 3. Be open to other non-XML expressions
> > >
> > > 4. An agreed terminology for mapping between the simple and complex
> > > models
> > >
> > > 5. Internationalisation, multi-lingual issues are crucial [being
> > > addressed in dc in multiple languages wg, registry activity]
> > >
> > > 6. What happened to structured values - I want to discuss this
> > >
> > > 7. Agent core will probably need structured values (value components)
> > > and wants to know more about why they were change
> > >
> > > 8. A full list of the official documents of DC with their
> > > status, responsibility
> > >
> > > Comments:
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > Some of these I don't really know what they mean, like 1 (is it about
> > > the socalled "authority linking"?) and 4.
> > >
> > > 6 and 7 is about the structured value problems. As I understand it, it
> > > is more or less a misunderstanding that DC won't support structured
> > > values. However, if something is to have a complex value, that value
> > > has to be an encoding scheme. To me, this does not seem to be
> > > a problem for
> > > any structured syntax. Is this also your interpretation?
> > >
> > > Point 2, then. Is there more to that one, than is implied by allowing
> > > structured encoding schemes?
> > >
> > > Then we have the one that means work... Number 8. I think we are doing
> > > quite well, but we need more volunteers for one document
> > >
> > > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/resources/dc/datamodel/WD-dc-rdf/
> > >
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > >
> > > Sigge
> > >
>
> --
> [log in to unmask] CSIRO Exploration & Mining
> T:+61(8) 9284 8443 F:+61(8) 9389 1906 M:0403 302 672
> http://www.ned.dem.csiro.au/research/visualisation/
>
|