Pete, and All,
I'm disappointed that the DC-in-XML-Minimal no longer appears to be being
considered. I was not able to attend the DC-Architecture meeting in Singapore
because it clashed with the workshop I was running. I think I was probably the
main proponent of the minimal version, but I'm not sure I was the only one.
I would agree that it is a good idea to focus on the Full version first
to get something published. It will certainly be a more effective use of
But I am hoping that once the Full version is agreed, then a Minimal subset
could also be defined. My real concern about the Full version is that
it is too
verbose for practical use. This is particularly true if one is trying
the XML format to potential users in domains that have little understanding of
Dublin Core, its Abstract Model, Application Profiles, etc. I have
DC-in-XML-Minimal as an XML exchange format in one project
(http://jigg.ac.uk/foi/ , see
for an XML example) (though I am not too worried about that project - it's
looking like a white elephant). I doubt if I could have advocated the Full
Ann Apps MBCS CITP. Research & Development, MIMAS,
The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 6040
Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html
Quoting Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>:
> At the meeting of the DCMI Architecture Forum at the DC-2007 conference
> in Singapore, there was some discussion of the two current proposals for
> encoding DC description sets in XML [2, 3]. The main outcomes were:
> - DCMI should have one recommended XML format for encoding description
> sets in XML; other agencies may define other XML formats.
> - That DCMI-recommended XML format should support the full DCAM
> description set model.
> - The primary emphasis should be on machine-processability
> (completeness/ease of parsing).
> - The format should be designed so that the number of alternate
> syntactic forms for a single construct in the DCAM description model is
> limited; ideally, each construct in the DCAM description model should
> have a single corresponding construct in the syntax.
> On this basis we decided in a recent DCMI Architecture Forum telecon 
> to move forward with a slightly revised version of the current
> DC-XML-Full proposal, amended to reduce the number of variations in the
> ways in which URIs are encoded i.e. all DCAM Described Resource URIs,
> Value URIs, VES URIs and SES URIs will be represented as attribute
> values using the same convention(s). The form to be used is to be
> decided, the options being conidered being URI references (URI or
> relative reference), "DC-XML Qualified Names" (or similar convention
> defined within the spec itself), or CURIEs (see below).
> Aside on CURIEs: I noticed that the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group has
> published an updated version of the CURIE Syntax . I was slightly
> surprised to see this, as I had thought that the plan was that CURIEs
> would be defined in a way which was "local" to the RDFa specification,
> but I guess I had misunderstood. Anyway, I suppose this puts CURIEs back
> on the table as an option (though I note that doc is still a Working
> We should also try to ensure a sensible alignment of XML
> element/attribute names in this format and in the XML format for
> representing DC Description Set Profiles .
> A revised proposal for DC-XML will be made available on the DCMI
> Architecture Forum wiki before the end of December with the intent of
> developing a Proposed Recommendation for public comment as soon as
> possible, probably early in 2008.
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/
>  http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DescriptionSetProfile
> 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