 |
 |
Rachel said why not include a clause in the abstract model to say > > "Local (novel? non-DCMI?) terms should follow DCMI conventions as regards > > relationships between terms i.e. properties should be expressed as > > elements or element refinements with no nesting or grouping." and Andy replied > > As far as I can tell, your proposed changes still allow for my scenario > above ?? (i.e. metadata with 50 IEEE LOM data elements and one DC data element) As I understand it there is a fundamental mis-match in the metadata model for IEEE LOM and DC. I am suggesting we mandate that the DQ model insists all data elements must adhere to the DC model as regards the sorts of relationship between properties. (The data elements need not be properties with DCMI namespaces) This would exclude IEEE LOM data elements.... it would include 'novel' DC-like data elements. Not that I dislike IEEE LOM data elements, just that they are covered by another model. (I am trying not to use the word record here as it seems to me a slippy concept given that a fairly typical metadata flow seems to consist of records being transformed from rich to simple and simple to rich. As has been covered on the other thread) Essentially I imagine the DQ model as covering all the DC like data elements in a 'metadata store'. But not data elements that adhere to a more complex model, where a different relationships between data elements is implied by the non-DC model. Phew... is that clearer? Rachel --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Heery UKOLN University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724 Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/