Mikael said:
> As part of this, it would probably be wise to collect some
> backwards-compatibility notes, possibly in a separate
> document. I'd like to have a section on how HTML metadata
> using the *old* spec (and old
> profile=) element is to be interpreted in terms of the DCAM.
OK.... and there's a link here between this activity and that of putting
in place a GRDDL profile transform for the old/current DC-in-HTML
profile (as that, taken together with the DCAM-RDF doc, would
effectively specify a DCAM interpretation)
> The same needs to be done for the old DC-XML spec,
That might be harder, or at least it might involve saying that some of
the syntactic constructs are ignored because they are ambiguous from the
DCAM perspective. I'll think about it.
> and again,
> I'd like to keep it out of the new specs.
Yes, I agree this stuff doesn't belong in the new specs.
> Does that sound ok? Could you produce a rough outline of what
> such a section would contain?
OK, yes, I'll have a go at it.
Pete
---
Pete Johnston
Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/
Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323
|