Hi! Just following the discussion without being a direct stakeholder...
DC is a proven tool for information discovery: if, ounce the information
is identified, the users is presented with the complete originating
application or document, DC is acceptable.
MODS is for long term cataloguing of library information.: it is for the
ONIX is a proven tool for publishers. It conveys complete information
for buying decisions.
Nobody asked Mr.Shafranovich the exact purpose of the information he
wants to add.
If you want to insure long term adequacy, a deep understanding of
purpose is necessary.
May be it is ILL and ILL standards should be used (I don't know how they
evolved since the 80's).
--> Costs are rarely only a number and a currency...
Implementing / Extending / Merging any of above standards imply to know
perfectly the aim of the new information requested...
Ray Denenberg a écrit :
> Your argument, Mike, boils down to: Let's not have yet another DC variant.
> I'm not aware of many DC variants, but perhaps there are.
> DC is insufficient - too simple - for many users, MOD to complex for many,
> and we need something in between for SRU, a "DC Variant" would be most
> expedient. Can you point to some of these DC variants and maybe we can
> select one or more that seem to be useful for SRU.
> Lacking that, I think we should develop one. We're talking about a
> descriptive metadata element set for search applications. Who's better than
> SRU implementors to develop it?
> And no, you can't necessarily say "use ONIX" the next time someone needs an
> element. "Price" happens to be in ONIX. The next needed element may not be
> in ONIX. We need to be in a position to support a needed element when the
> need arises, without going to some external body and begging them to add it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SRU Record Metadata and DCX Schema (was: Price information in
> SRU responses)
> 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 >> solve.
> > 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 to me.
> > 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"