|
|
|
Wednesday 13.30 - 15.30
Seminar Room: 5205 (2nd Floor) |
|
|
|
|
Review of the Abstract Model and moving
forward
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/abstract-model/ |
|
RDF resource vs. literal issue
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/rdf-values/ |
|
XML schema issues
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/xmls-issues/ |
|
Identifiers for historical versions of metadata
terms
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0410&L=dc-architecture&T=0&O=D&P=3366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract Model document moved forward (slowly) |
|
“Expressing Dublin Core in HTML/XHTML meta and
link elements” issued as a DCMI Recommendation |
|
discussion paper about assigning URIs for
metadata terms |
|
something like 200 messages posted to the
dc-architecture mailing list |
|
|
|
|
|
|
changed 'URI' to 'URI reference' at appropriate
points throughout |
|
added 'description set' to the description model
to separate out the conceptual grouping of related descriptions (a
'description set') from its instantiation in a particular syntax (a
'record') |
|
|
|
|
introduction of 'property/value pair' into the
resource model to separate abstract notion of a property from the specific
usage of a property to describe a particular resource |
|
modified the definition of 'sub-property' in the
resource model |
|
|
|
|
|
|
added of a note about needing to indicate how
'resource URIs' and 'value URIs' are handled in encoding syntax
specifications |
|
explicit indication that 'resource URIs' and
'value URIs' are not supported by the current XML encoding guidelines |
|
explicit indication that 'resource URIs' are not
supported by the XHTML encoding syntax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
possible need for further clarification of how
URIs are handled by the AM – in short, dcterms:URI is almost never used and
certainly not to indicate a ‘value URI’ |
|
it would be better if we modelled ‘syntax
encoding scheme URI’ and ‘vocabulary encoding scheme URI’ as separate
entities in the model |
|
|
|
|
the AM currently restricts the number of
‘parent’ properties that a sub-property can have to a maximum of one - this
is an error and will be made unlimited. |
|
does the model get the definitions of ‘simple
DC’ and ‘qualified DC’ right? |
|
should the model support ordered lists of
values? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status quo |
|
Align behaviour of consuming systems |
|
Align behaviour of consuming and generating
systems |
|
Attempt to influence the behaviour of the wider
Semantic Web community |
|
Replicate existing DC property semantics in new
properties |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agenda: |
|
Abstract Model |
|
encoding DC element values in RDF |
|
XML schema issues |
|
identifiers for DCMI term descriptions |
|
21 attendees |
|
|
|
|
moved Abstract Model forward slowly |
|
issued XHTML encoding guidelines as a
Recommendation |
|
developed issues papers on identifiers |
|
about 200 postings to the
dc-architecture mailing list |
|
|
|
|
|
|
discussion around the meanings of ‘simple DC’
and ‘qualified DC’ |
|
no consensus |
|
agreed to remove definitions of these terms from
the Abstract Model |
|
discussed possibility of adding support for
‘ordered lists of values’ to the abstract model – little support for this
in the room |
|
|
|
|
|
problem: some confusion in RDF implementer
community currently |
|
solution (short-term): work item to develop a
short clarification document for RDF implementers |
|
solution (long-term): work item to develop a
view of possible ‘encoding’ changes to remove confusion and carry out
impact analysis |
|
undertaken by small ‘task force’ |
|
|
|
|
agreed to provide a persistent URI to the latest
version of our XML schemes |
|
agreed to provide two ‘container’ elements for
DC descriptions, probably called <dcxml:description> and
<dcxml:descriptionSet> |
|
work item: revise DC in XML Guidelines to
include explicit mechanism for value URIs |
|
|
|
|
work item: minimal update to the namespace
policy to align some of the terminology with current usage |
|
consider ways of documenting how we assign URIs
to DCMI term descriptions |
|
Notes