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"