At 09:36 AM 8/30/2004, Ray wrote:
>I agree of course, but as there isn't anything that formally ties the DC
>index set to the DC schema, I'm trying to imagine how such a recommendation
>is to be formulated. [...] Or a more general recommendation to apply to
>all such pairs? In that case how do we assert this relationship?
It is my belief that the root problem with DC elements is that they try
at once to be abstract (as indexes) and concrete (as record schema elements).
Obviously, it is quite useful to have a small set of named concepts (title,
author, subject, date...) as abstract search access points. These concepts
could be asserted in the cql context set, along with serverChoice and
anywhere, and so would be readily available to other context sets. The
DC context set can, of course, have its own elements for those cases where
the content actually has a concrete DC structure.