 |
 |
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 05:50:46PM +0000, Richard Urban wrote: > DCMI's current recommendation with regard to interoperability can be found in > Interoperability Levels for Dublin Core Metadata [1], which was last revised > in 2009. One of the problems I find with DCMI documentation is that it can > be fragmented at times. For example, the DCAM itself does not reference this > document. I believe it is important to add reference to this and perhaps > even a brief summary of the "DCMI Stack", especially in any "DCAM for > Librarians" type document. (I don't think it is enough to have a separate > document - I think the fragmentation of this information is one of the > frustrations that people have about DCAM). Good point! > Can others confirm this remains the current recommendation, and should be the > basis of anything we wish to include in revised DCAM text? Levels 3 and 4 have a dependency on the current DCAM and would need to be revised in light of DCAM 2. > "Level 3: Description Set syntactic interoperability > This level corresponds to explicit use of the DCMI Abstract Model in the metadata. > > ? The metadata must be structured using the DCMI Abstract Model notions of Descriptions and Description Sets. > ? The Statements in a Description must use the structure defined by the DCMI Abstract Model." Note that there is also a Level 4 on which applications share not just a basis in (or mapping to) DCAM, with its Description Set (Record) construct, but also share the constraints expressed in a Description Set Profile (application profile). This raises the question about where to draw the boundaries between DCAM, constraint languages used on top of DCAM, and DCAM-compatible instance metadata records constrained according to DSPs (APs). Tom [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/interoperability-levels/ -- Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>