On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:16:18PM +0100, Andy Powell wrote:
> > We first should say, what model DCMI has w.r.t. metadata in general.
> Yes, I agree that this is a possible approach.  We *could* define a
> DCMI Abstract Metadata Model
> which would be broader than the model I propose.


I like the idea of making the model more general.

If we are in effect talking here about a document that
would subsume and replace a number of our other foundational
documents -- we should avoid defining things like "encoding
scheme" in two or three different places -- then I would like
to suggest a few other things to include:

-- The suggestion (discussed in an earlier posting) that we
   drop the notion of "Qualified Dublin Core" and focus on
   firming up a formal notion of "Dublin Core Application
   Profile".  (Hmm, would we want to call it "DCMI Application

-- Defining "Simple Dublin Core" as one particular "DCAP".

-- The notion of a "core", and of a core functioning as
   a "pidgin".  The idea is central to what we are trying to
   do in terms of interoperability, and it provides a sort
   of historical explanation for why we have "Elements"
   and "Element Refinements" (now both clarified to be
   "properties").  In principle, the notion of a model with
   "Core Elements" (gee I wish we called them that...)
   is usable in many other contexts.


Dr. Thomas Baker                                [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: [log in to unmask]