- From: Pete Johnston <Pete.Johnston@eduserv.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 17:53:00 +0100
- To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- CC: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>, Andy Powell <andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-lld@w3.org" <public-lld@w3.org>
> It's fine to build a solution stack on a specific syntax such > as XML schema. I'm not questioning that idea, just saying where > I see difference to the DCAM/DSP/SF approach. > > The idea behind DCAM/DSP/SF is to offer constructs and language > for expressing application profile constraints independently of > any specific syntax. Designers of metadata are not typically > experts in the limitations of particular technologies like > XML Schema (e.g. librarians), and implementers may have good > reasons to want to implement a particular metadata design in > different or multiple syntaxes (e.g., XML Schema and RDFa). > > The DCAM/DSP/SF approach of course acknowledges that > alternative implementation syntaxes are not equally expressive > of the constraints that people may want to define. Just to illustrate Tom's point, a while ago, I experimented with a (rather rough and ready - it was just an experiment) transform to map a subset of the constraints expressed in a Description Set Profile [1] into a set of constraints for the DC-DS-XML format [2], expressed as a Schematron schema. See http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2009/09/experiments-with-dsp-and-schematron.html I imagine one could construct a similar transform to generate schemas (of various flavours) for other XML formats (RDF/XML or TriX or some other XML format) (though it may be that not all of the constraints in the DSP can be mapped into constraints on the XML doc, depending on the characteristics of the format and the expressivity of the XML schema language). Pete [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/ [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/09/01/dc-ds-xml/
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 16:53:47 UTC