> The DC metamodel is based on a resource-property-value model, much like
> LOM is based on a containment model (elements contain elements that
> contain elements, etc.). There is no explicit resource-property-value
> semantics in this model. This makes the LOM metamodel very close to the
> XML model.
I'm not quite sure, whether i understand this correctly.
Do you mean non-global elements/attributes are used and no URIref
binding for properties/classes exists?
> LOM therefore maps easily to XML. The mapping can essentially be made
> algorithmically by mapping the metamodel to XML.
> The same is true for the DC->RDF mapping. By mapping the metamodel
> constructs to RDF, the rest follows automatically (more or less).
more or less ....
> But mapping LOM to RDF, or trying to combine LOM and DC elements by
> aligning the LOM elements with the DC metamodel, mut be done on an
> element-by-element basis, as the metamodels do not match.
> So each
> element must be analyzed and mapped in an idiosyncratic way.
> I could give many examples from the LOM-RDF binding, but I'll stop here.
So there a faithful embedding to (a semantic extension of) RDF(S) has been defined?
Need more input...
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose