W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > March 2003

Re: requesting XML records

From: Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:36:28 +0000 (GMT)
To: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
cc: www-zig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SO4.4.05.10303270913530.10308-100000@lamin.ukoln.ac.uk>

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Theo van Veen wrote:

> I referred to the terminology used in the mail that I responded to
> (see below). It was certainly no my intention to confuse full and
> brief (which are supposed to be schemas)  with simple and qualified
> (which refer to namespaces)

Not really - simple and qualified refer to 'application profiles'
(groupings of metadata elements and qualifiers which may be represented
using XML schemas, or RDFS, or ...), not to namespaces. It is true that
simple DC happens to map directly onto one namespace
(http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/). But qualified DC uses two namespaces
(http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ and http://purl.org/dc/terms/). (More if
you count the namespaces from which controlled vocabularies are taken).  
And it is certainly conceivable that DCMI will introduce additional
namespaces in the future that will be used within qualified DC - though
there are no current plans to do so.

> and I do support the DCMI guidelines
> (which can be expressed in a schema).

> My point is that requesting a certain types of records, responding
> certain types of records and accepting and understanding the responded
> records are three different things that does not perse have to be
> expressed by a single schema.  Example: We defined an application
> profile that we encourage to be used for optimal functionality.  But
> we accept DC simple, we prefer to get DC qualified and we ackowledge
> the fact that some use the library application profile. Currently I do
> not know a descent way of requesting records in conformance with what
> I described.

Yes.  I agree this is an issue.  What I think you want to do is request a
metadata record that conforms to any 'application profile' that is based
on 'simple DC'.  I agree that we have no way of making such a request
currently (nor does the OAI-PMH) - but I also agree that it would be
useful to have such a mechanism.

(Note: I would prefer to use the term 'metadata application profile'
rather than 'application profile' to prevent confusion with Z39.50
profiles and the like - but DC currently uses the latter).

Andy.

> Theo
> 
> 
> On 26 Mar 2003 at 23:33, Andy Powell wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Theo van Veen wrote:
> > 
> > > How many DC-brief schemas and how many DC-full schemas do we need.?
> > > What is the difference between DC and DC-full. When I ask for DC, do I
> > > get DC-full or DC-brief. What if a server only supports DC and I ask
> > > for DC-brief? Do I get an error message or the server's best choice?
> > 
> > Just to note... DCMI does not use (or recognise) the terms 'DC-full' and
> > 'DC-brief'.  It tends to use the terms 'simple DC' (or sometimes
> > 'DC-simple') and 'qualified DC'.  Definitions of these phrases are
> > provided in the document at
> > 
> > http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/12/02/dc-xml-guidelines/
> > 
> > (which will hopefully move from a proposed recommendation to a
> > recommendation very shortly).
> > 
> > Assuming that you mean the same things by DC-brief and DC-full, I think it
> > would be very unhelpful to start using different terminology.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Andy.
> > 
> > > Some do not accept "DC" but require the URI:
> > > http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/dcschema/v1.0/ . Others use
> > > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ for requesting DC. And in OAI DC is
> > > compulsary and it is called oai_dc, but is is just dc. Is there a
> > > schema that allows me to say: "I prefer DC-brief, but I do understand
> > > qualified DC-full and I will not crash when there are a few elements
> > > from other namespaces"?
> > > 
> > > We introduce more and more incompatibility by overstructuring things in a non-functional way. Maybe it is time for a change. 
> > > 
> > > Theo 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >>> Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov> 26-03-03 16:12 >>>
> > > 
> > > joe_zeeman@notes.rlg.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > > But the version 2 way of doing it is still wrong, because the XML
> > > > DTD/schema is NOT an element set name.  I want to be able to say both "I
> > > > want a Dublin Core record in XML" and "I want a brief record".  The two are
> > > > not mutually exclusive.  Version 2 does not provide a mechanism to say the
> > > > 3 things we want to say:  XML AND Dublin Core AND Brief.
> > > 
> > > Joe -- Although we continue to maintain the clear distinction between syntax and
> > > schema, we decided (also at the Dublin meeting --  maybe you were "out of the
> > > room"?) not to perpetuate the distinction between schema and element set name, for
> > > xml. Thus "DC-full" and "DC brief" would be two schemas.  This was the consensus at
> > > Dublin.
> > > 
> > > --Ray
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Andy
> > --
> > Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell       +44 1225 383933
> > Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell       +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 06:36:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:23 GMT