On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andy Powell wrote:
> There *is* a relationship between format and
> extent and the relationship *is* present in the model. Specifically, in
> section 2 of
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/abstract-model/
>
> we say...
>
> "Each property may be related to exactly one other property by a refines
> (sub-property) relationship (where the two properties share some
> semantics such that all valid values of the sub-property are also valid
> values of the related property)."
>
> Then in section 6 we go on to say...
>
> "Note that software should make use of the DCMI term declarations
> represented in RDF schema language [DC-RDFS] and the DC XML namespaces
> [DC-NAMESPACES] to automate the resolution of sub-property
> relationships."
Just to return to this,
It seems to me because of the above, and perhaps for other reasons, the
'DCMI schema' (which might alternatively be characterised as term set,
data element set, vocabulary) should appear as an entity within the DCMI
description model i.e. figure 2.
Why?
- relationships between DC properties can only be interpreted by reference
to schema, so to fully interpret instance metadata one must have reference
to associated schema. It would be useful to indicate this in the model
diagram.
- DCMI properties are constrained in so far as they must be present in DC
schema.
- Inclusion of schema in model diagram would 'contextualise' the model by
indicating its connection with a specified data element set.
So '(DCMI) schema contains a (DCMI) property' ?
I suppose there might be argument that one has to draw boundary of model
at arbitrary point, but it seems to me to balance the detail of the 'value
space' modelling there might usefully be inclusion of schema.
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|