On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:25:17PM -0500, Tom Baker wrote:
> -- that DCAM should be developed using a test-driven approach, with
> effective examples and test cases that can be expressed in various
> concrete syntaxes.
Jon suggested that we take Gordon's requirements for metadata record constructs
 as a starting point. As I understand them, these are:
-- the ability to encode multicomponent things (which in the cataloging
world happen to be called "statements", as in "publication statement"
and "classification statement") either:
-- as unstructured strings, or
-- as strings structured according to a named Syntax Encoding Scheme, or
-- as Named Graphs with individual component triples
-- the ability to express the repeatability of components in such "statements"
-- the ability to designate properties as "mandatory", or "mandatory if
applicable", and the like
-- the ability to constrain the cardinality of "subsets of properties"
within a particular context, such as the FRBR model
-- the ability to express mappings between properties in different namespaces.
It has also been suggested that we find examples of real metadata instance
records from different communities and contexts -- e.g., libraries, government,
industry, and biomed -- for both testing and illustrating DCAM constracts.
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>