- From: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:52:35 +0100
- To: <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
>>>> Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk> 27-03-03 12:36 >>> > >On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Theo van Veen wrote: > >> 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. I think we only need one thing to make this happen: reserve the term DCX (Dublin Core extended) to express the fact that records - requested or returned - are based on DC and DCQ, but may also contain elements from other namespaces. Theo
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 06:55:07 UTC