> The schema text behind this URI should be:
> DCX stands for Dublin Core eXtended. DCX means that the XML records are
> encoding according to the DCMI guidelines and contain terms from the dc
> dcterms namespaces. The records may contain terms from other namespaces
> when they could not - within reason - be expressed by terms from the dc
> dcterms namespaces. It is recommended that as much as possible terms from
> DCMI registered elementsets are being used.
> DCX may be used as an alternative for the actual name of a schema or a DC
> Application Profile to allow for requesting or providing records for which
> name is not known to the requestor but which can safely be used by the
> for extracting terms that are defined in the Dublin Core registry.
Assuming this definition and assuming that dcx represents it, is it the
intention that (a) dc would be the value of the recordSchema request
parameter, and an extraDataRequest of value dcx would be included, (b) dcx
would be the value of recordSchema (c) no value of recordSchema would be
supplied and dcx would be included as extraRequestData? Or what? (And I
sure hope the answer isn't (b)!)
recordSchema has to be an xml schema, doesn't it? It can't be some
description like above (thus ruling out (b)). I hope this is true but I
don't know if we've ever discussed it.
Is it not possible to write an xml schema that does this (dcx)? Or at
least most of it? Then we don't have to bother with the extraDataRequest.
My meeting notes indicate that we were going to come up with a DC-extended
XML schema. Anyone want to take that on? Then, is the remaining problem to
accomodate the additional elements outside of DC? So write an
extraRequestData definition (not specific to DC) that says you can add