At 04:46 PM 9/11/2003 +0100, Rachel Heery wrote:

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.

Oh, oh.  I think this would be problematic.  What about the DC-Libraries Application Profile that uses the MARC Holdings field for location for physical objects?  Or DC-Ed, which has designated three IEEE LOM elements (all of which are included in the latest version of the NSDL qualified DC schema, by the way). 

I think we're well down that road, and I don't see it as a particular problem--what we're using of those elements is the definition, not the data model they come from.  Given the vast differences in something like MARC (almost 40 years old now) and the newer element sets, I can't imagine we'd be able to mandate anything like this and be able to get away with it.  And why would we want to? Would it really make things simpler?  And, in reality, does your average implementor really care about data models? Far as I can tell they're only relevant for the folks trying to push the envelope on the development side of things (like most of us).


Diane I. Hillmann
National Science Digital Library
Cornell Information Science             Voice: 607/255-5691
301 College Ave.                        Fax: 607/255-5196
Ithaca, NY 14850                        Email: [log in to unmask]