Andy (and others, maybe Pete)
What would be the most likely DC offical position on the issues of machine
readable authority data and metadata architecture
taking into account interoperablity?
I wonder, if for instance, I want to refer to an entry from
LNAF or some other 'exposed' and machine readable data
- is it possible/desirable/suggested(?) to have in dc.creator URI/ID of
authority entry instead of textual value (Surname, Name)?
For instance if my VCard is external to my dc standalone metadata
repository (encoded in XML or XML/RDF), properly encoded, should I:
a) have authority entry URI/id, instead of textual value (Surname, Name)
b) have both authority entry URI/ID and textual value
c) use ID locally but replace ID with text value from VCard
file when exporting/publishing metadata (i.e. engaging in information exchange)
d) use ID only, but export/exchange both VCard file and metadata files???
e) have only text value in dc metadata and use authority file only as cataloguing
tool, source
I always find strange to nest too much authority data in metadata instance,
especially if this one is kept external
for the purpose of maintenance, update and management.
Could any of these be clearly rejected or not recommended?
Aida
>- the application-specific comment isn't machine readable in any real
> sense
>- in the general case, it isn't clear how one gets from some instance
> metadata to the 'application profile' that was used to create the
> instance metadata.
>
>(Note that in the case of XML instance metadata (*not* RDF/XML) one can
>get to the application profile from the instance metadata by following
the
>link to the XML schema definition - assuming that the XML schema
>effectively carries all the application profile information).
|