On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Rachel Heery wrote:
> Rachel said why not include a clause in the abstract model to say
> > > "Local (novel? non-DCMI?) terms should follow DCMI conventions as regards
> > > relationships between terms i.e. properties should be expressed as
> > > elements or element refinements with no nesting or grouping."
> and Andy replied
> > As far as I can tell, your proposed changes still allow for my scenario
> > above ??
> (i.e. metadata with 50 IEEE LOM data elements and one DC data element)
> As I understand it there is a fundamental mis-match in the metadata model
> for IEEE LOM and DC.
OK, I see what you are getting at. But you've missed my point. I was
using LOM simply as an example
of some fairly widely known properties - I was glossing over the
differences in the underlying model.
So ignore the letters 'IEEE LOM' in my scenario. Pick any set of
properties that you like that come from some namespace other than DC and
that conform to your notion of 'DC-like data elements'. I dunno, 'FOAF'
or something. My question is, if there is only one DC property and
significantly more non-DC properties, is it still 'qualified DC'? What if
there are zero DC properties?
> it would include 'novel' DC-like data elements.
"DC-like data elements" sounds even worse than 'document-like objects"
> Phew... is that clearer?
Yes... but we still disagree! :-)>
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/