Re: Why not use DC?

Hi Ron,


2009/10/12 Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>

> Hi Felix,
>
> Thanks for the additional information.
>
> > I see one value of the work of the MAWG that it combines the semantics
> > defined in the mapping table with data type descriptions described in
> > the API. If we would use Dublin Core here the picture would get rather
> > complicated, since some of the underlying formats use dublin core as
> > well, but with a difference in the degree of explicity for data type
> > descriptions (e.g. XMP as an example with many details). That would
> > lead to a mapping from DC in XMP to DC in MAWG, with a lot of data
> > type unclearness.
>
> Right, I see what you are saying. I'd like to think about this a bit.
> My current question is whether data type cleanliness is going to be
> significant - how much difference is there in the mapping code going
> from XMP to format X, vs. from EBUCore to format X?
>


I think it is significant. Take a look at the related work of the metadata
working group, that is e.g. page 34 of
http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf
I think a guidance like this benefits a lot from not describing one format
as the main one.



>
> Another question I want to think about is how much of this is motivated
> by the specifics of the API, and would a different API design avoid this
> confusion between ma:x and dc:x?
>


I don't think that the API design is the main reason for not putting dublin
core in the front - see the metadata working group approach, which also
describes mappings without an API.

Best,

Felix



>
> More later after I ponder a bit.
>
> Best regards,
> Ron
>
>
>