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 Baker <[log in to unmask]>