Weibel,Stu wrote:
> ...
> 4.3.13 RELATION
>
> The RELATION element logically requires three components: two entities
> and a named relationship that links them. The base entity is the
> resource described by the metadata. The target entity is separate
> object that should be identified in an unambiguous way with a
> globally
> unique identifier (see the IDENTIFIER element).
Wow!!! - to me this looks like a considerable development from
what had emerged from the WG. Two main things jump out:
1. we only found TWO components for Relation -
Relationship type
(12 enumerated cases, representing two-way
versions of only 6 distinct classes of relationship)
Identifier for related resource
(your "target entity" above - and adding the
cross-reference to IDENTIFIER in the sentence
describing the "target entity" is highly confusing
- see my next comment)
2. your "base entity" is sematically identical to the basic
DC:Identifier (ie the identifier for the present resource).
Would I be right in interpreting the insertion of this as
a _required_ component of Relation is implicitly a way of
getting around the "optional" possibility for DC:Identifier?
If this is really what is going on then that is a poor
excuse for such a big change.
>
> ... Unqualified relation specifications should chose from
> among the following relation types for DC-Simple applications:
>
>
> Relation.IsPartOf [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
> Relation.HasPart [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
> Relation.IsVersionOf [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
> Relation.HasVersion [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
3. Why is this list so much reduced from the
12 classes of relationship type that was identified
by the Relation WG?
4. (See also above) I really don't understand
the keywords [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER] in this
context - what are each of these supposed to hold?
This all looks very different to what I had
interpreted as the outcome of the Relation WG.
Although we did not do syntax, using the
dot notation I would suggest that a better
representation would have just two sub-elements
[Type, Identifier] used as in the following example:
for the resource where
DC:Identifier = "paper.html"
a relationship would be asserted using
DC:Relation.Type = "isFormatOf" (... from the enumerated list)
DC:Relation.Identifier = "paper.doc".
Bundling in the unqualified form of DC would thus result in:
DC:Identifier = "paper.html"
DC:Relation = "isFormatOf, paper.doc"
which still makes sense!
--
__________________________________________________
Dr Simon Cox - Australian Geodynamics Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Exploration & Mining, PO Box 437, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
T: +61 8 9389 8421 F: +61 8 9389 1906 [log in to unmask]
http://www.ned.dem.csiro.au/SimonCox/
|