- From: Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:28:23 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
- cc: www-zig@w3.org
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Mike Taylor wrote: > I don't see a scaling problem with this at all -- in fact, I'd have > thought scalability was one of the _strengths_ of this approach. (The > only problem is that, since the DCMI steadfastly refuse to define an > XML Schema for Dublin Core, a dozen different projects are busily at > work defining their own, subtly incompatible, versions.) This isn't quite true. DCMI has defined and published an XML schema for simple DC. See http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/ (I would hope that a similar schema for qualified DC will be released shortly). However, it is worth noting that the simple DC schema is specifically intended for importing into other, applicationp-specific schemas. Therefore it does not define a container element for the DC record - it is up to the application to define that. An example of how this works is demonstrated by the DC schema used in version 2 of the OAI-PMH... http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd It would be nice for SRW to have used the same mechanism http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/dc.xsd On the other hand, I don't see any obvious incompatabilities between the resulting instance metadata generated by the two approaches? 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 Tuesday, 25 March 2003 19:28:27 UTC