Ray Denenberg writes:
>> Finally, there is the proposal that you posted, namely the ability
>> to extend Dublin Core records with elements from the Record
>> Metadata namespace. I think this is a good and useful proposal,
>> but it has nothing to do with the particular problem we set out to
> I think you're still not grasping what I'm proposing.
More than likely :-)
> I'm NOT proposing to extend our DC schema with the RMD namespace.
> I'm proposing to extend the DC schema with both the RMD namespace
> AND the DMD namespace.
> The DMD namespace will be a discrete set of descriptive metadata
> elements that we come up with collectively (just as we did for the
> DMD namespace) one of which will be 'price'.
At that point, we'll have got into application profiling, and we'll
run the risk of ending up with an incompletely specified,
half-thought-through subset of ONIX. Doesn't seem like a great idea
> This approach does not have the interoperability problem you cite
> because, dmd:price for example, will be a well-known element from a
> well-known namespace.
That's true; but it'll be achieved at the price of introducing yet
another DC variant, and also yet another application-level schema.
Plus I'm not sure there's the will to make this DMD element set.
> If the person who started this discussion, about price, wants to
> use ONIX, fine, but at least we'll have this in place for the next
> time someone has a similar need.
Or we could say "use ONIX" the next time someone has a similar need.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "You adopted a fox-cub whose mother was somebody's coat" --
Roger Waters, "Go Fishing"