On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Andy Powell wrote:
> I've put my own thoughts on guidelines for XML implementors in a document
> at
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/resources/dc/dc-xml-guidelines/
>
I am wondering about the statement in the Qualified dublin Core abstarct
model that:
<quote>
Each encoding scheme has a name defined in the DC Qualifiers
recommendation.
</quote>
This seems to suggest that DCMI is attempting to construct an exhaustive
list of 'valid' encoding schemes, which I do not think is the case.
Certainly in the original recommendation for encoding schemes for Subject
the working group specifically pointed out that the list of subject
classification schemes was not intended to be restrictive.
My understanding is that it is valid and useful for implementors to
express non-recommended encoding schemes in the same way as recommended
schemes. For example if a specialised classification scheme such as SfI is
used it will still be identified in the same way as a recommended scheme
such as LCSH.
I believe this is somewhat different from the situation with
element refinements, tho admittedly the current Dublin Core Qualifiers
document does not make this clear. Tho digging round on the dublincore
web site it is raised in effect in
http://dublincore.org/groups/usage/meetings/dublin-20010521/
vocabulary-guidelines.htm
So I would suggest something like
Where a particular encoding scheme is recommended it will have a name
defined in the DC Qualifiers recommendation.
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|