Tom,

There currently is no SWAP TG - this is something which might be set up 
after Berlin. Which I guess means that it's down to me.  I'll consult a 
few relevant people and provide clarification soon.

Julie

Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:26:29AM +0100, Julie Allinson wrote:
>   
>> As far as I am concerned, the current syntax guidelines should be 
>> deprecated once the DCMI specification is finalised. I wonder if Pete 
>> could comment on that statement, as he authored the original guidelines. 
>>     
>
> I just want to point out there are two possibly separate issues here:
>
> -- what the SWAP TG wants to do w.r.t. syntax guidance as work
>    moves forward
>
> -- what syntax guidance should now fall within the scope of the 
>    UB review
>
> The review criteria say that "Guidelines on syntax options
> and data formats may optionally be provided in an application
> profile."  As syntax guidelines are optional, then one possible
> course would be for the SWAP TG to provide a clarification
> of the situation, in which case the current guidelines would
> not be part of the review.  The UB review would then provide
> a clarification of the general situation instead of a detailed
> review of the current guidelines.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>   
>> Thomas Baker wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:05:50AM +0100, Julie Allinson wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>>> The following links are now up and working.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile
>>>>>> http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile?action=DSP2XML
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>> ...
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Yes, for those reviewing compliance against the Description Set Profile, 
>>>> these documents should be used.  The first is a human-readably version, 
>>>> the second is an XML rendering.  Both documents replicate all of the 
>>>> content in the original application profile document  [1] but with 
>>>> additional constraints such as min & max occurences, literal/non-literal 
>>>> etc. The original application profile document was created before the 
>>>> DSP so didn't contain this information.
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> Julie,
>>>
>>> I would also like to re-confirm current TG thinking on
>>> the status of the Eprint-specific syntax guidelines for the
>>> purposes of this Usage Board review.  Will the SWAP community
>>> continue to point to these syntax guidelines until they are 
>>> replaced by a DCMI specification?  Some of the issues with
>>> regard to [3] are known and have been discussed elsewhere.
>>> Is there somewhere a summary of that discussion that we should
>>> consider in the review?
>>>
>>> Please have a look at the questions in [1, see also below]
>>> and let Stefanie and me know whether the review outline at
>>> [2] is going in the right direction.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0807&L=dc-usage&P=907
>>> [2] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ReviewSyntaxGuidelines
>>> [3] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Before we proceed further, several issues for discussion:
>>>>
>>>> -- We would like to confirm that our job is simply to review
>>>>   whether the guidelines or formats "appear to support" the
>>>>   constructs in the description set profile (and not to
>>>>   attempt any further validation).
>>>>
>>>> -- We note that the review criteria (excerpted below) say 
>>>>   nothing about checking whether URIs are being encoded
>>>>   well - an important but potentially complex issue.
>>>>
>>>> -- What is the current position of the SWAP editors on the
>>>>   status of the Eprint Syntax Guidelines reviewed in [8]?
>>>>   SWAP already supports DCAM transparently, to the point of
>>>>   using DC-TEXT in its examples, so presumably the future
>>>>   DC-XML guidelines could be substituted here.
>>>>
>>>> -- The Guidelines support Rich Representations, a construct
>>>>   deprecated in the latest DCAM, even though the description
>>>>   set profile does not explicitly cite it.  However, the
>>>>   task is to check whether the constructs in [5] are supported
>>>>   in [2] -- not to compare [2] to DCAM.
>>>>
>>>> Tom and Stefanie
>>>>
>>>> [1] 
>>>> http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/ApplicationProfiles/ProfileReviewCriteriaDe#Syntax_Guidelines
>>>> [2] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML
>>>> [3] 
>>>> http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/ApplicationProfiles/ProfileReviewCriteriaDe
>>>> [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-text/
>>>> [5] 
>>>> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Scholarly_Works_Application_Profile
>>>> [6] http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile
>>>> [7] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_DC_XML
>>>> [8] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ReviewSyntaxGuidelines
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>  
>>>       
>> -- 
>> Julie Allinson  <[log in to unmask]>
>> Digital Library Manager
>> University Library & Archives, J.B. Morrell Library
>> University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK
>> tel: ++44 (0) 1904 434083 skype: j.allinson
>> web: http://www.york.ac.uk/services/library/elibrary/digitallibrary.htm
>> --
>>     
>
>   


-- 
Julie Allinson  <[log in to unmask]>
Digital Library Manager
University Library & Archives, J.B. Morrell Library
University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK
tel: ++44 (0) 1904 434083 skype: j.allinson
web: http://www.york.ac.uk/services/library/elibrary/digitallibrary.htm
--