On Friday 17 April 2009 12:32:39 Neil Godfrey wrote:
> I had always understood pure OAI_DC (as per OAI-PMH implementation
> guidelines) to refer specifically to any of the 15 properties from
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ and
> http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd
I would probably phrase it as "OAI_DC is defined by
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd" but I believe what you say is
correct (the oai_dc:dc wrapper element notwithstanding). Note that the
oai_dc.xsd schema specifies the version of Simple DC from 2002-12-12, rather
than whatever happens to be current:
http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd
> How is OAI_DC affected by the relegation of the dc elements 1.1 to legacy,
> and their preferred replacement for rdf purposes by dcterms and its related
> 55 properties?
It isn't, at least not directly. OAI may in future create a new version of
OAI_DC that uses the DC Metadata Terms instead of the DC Metadata Element Set,
but it hasn't so far.
> Related, if an application profile avoids the use of "date" and uses only
> "modified", "issued" etc, then how does that impact OAI_DC?
No matter what the application profile does with dates, when it comes to
providing the OAI_DC metadata for OAI-PMH harvesters, date metadata should be
in a dc:date element. It will be a matter of local policy which of the dates
is used.
There is, of course, nothing to stop one providing additional, alternative
metadata according to a different schema or profile, provided it can be
expressed in XML. The OAI_DC set of metadata is a minimum requirement, after
all, not an exclusive one.
Cheers,
Alex.
--
Alex Ball
Research Officer
UKOLN, University of Bath, UK. BA2 7AY
T: +44 1225 383668 F: +44 1225 386256
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|