> In my opinion, the point is not so much which terms are used
> -- whether they are owned and maintained by DCMI or not --
> but what underlying grammatical typology (e.g., elements
> versus encoding schemes) or Abstract Model is being used.
> The CEN Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles (,
> to be discussed in a separate posting) say: "By definition, a
> DCAP is based in part on Dublin Core and follows DCMI
> Grammatical Principles ."
> I don't see how one could be more specific than "based in
> part" (we don't want to go down the path of deciding whether
> it takes at least 1, or 5, or 15...). In my opinion, the
> emphasis on the model is what is important here.
So... taking one of Diane's specific examples....
The DC Libraries AP borrows an "element" called "location"
from the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)
MODS is defined as an XML schema. It defines an XML tree structure, and
its "elements" are (I think) XML elements. As far as I can tell, MODS
has no other explicit data model outside the tree structure, it makes no
references to properties of resources or to URIrefs (and certainly not
to elements-in-the-DCMI-sense and encoding schemes), only to XML
elements and XML attributes (and their "structural" relationships in the
tree) and to XML QNames.
I do wonder what exactly is being borrowed here? A "unit of meaning"?
Maybe, but to what extent is that "unit of meaning" defined by MODS
"reusable" in this way if it is defined as part of a MODS tree
Apologies, DC-Lib people, I'm not singling out DC-Lib AP for criticism,
and I'm sure I could find other examples - I'm not even sure I can
provide clear answers to my own questions. And maybe this is a
non-problem, but these are the sort of issues where I feel we are not
entirely on firm ground.