On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 18:16, Andy Powell wrote:
> If a Qualified DC metadata record can include external properties then the
> logical conclusion is that a metadata record that contains 50 IEEE LOM
> properties and 1 DC property is a Qualified DC metadata record. That
> feels non-sensical (or, at least, non-intuitive) to me.
> A metadata record made up of 50 LOM properties and 1 DC property is a LOM
> record that 'incorporates' qualified DC (IMHO).
I really think your examples demonstrate quite clearly that the concept
of "record" does not belong to the DC abstract model at all. It only
makes sense in certain encodings (XML, notably). In RDF there is no
canonical way of identifying the borders between records anyway, so why
make this distinction at the abstract level?
I strongly feel the concept of a metadata record or instance creates
more problems than it solves (I even wrote about it:
> That said, I think there's enough in the current document to allow people
> like IEEE LOM to adopt the same model if they desire and write it up as an
> IEEE LOM abstract model.
Indeed, that would be great... The problem is of course that LOM has a
completely incompatible metamodel :-)
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose