Print

Print


Forget the "enough DC elements to be useful" definition. The definition I used 6 years ago to introduce DCX is (http://persons.kb.nl/tvveen/dcx/):

 

“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 and dcterms namespaces. The records may contain terms from other namespaces when they could not - within reason - be expressed by terms from the dc and dcterms namespaces. It is recommended that as much as possible terms from DCMI registered element sets are being used.”

 

I would leave it up to the data provider whether a record is considered to be a DCX record. Strictly speaking 0 dc elements is possible and everything could be called DCX. It is not possible to validate this definition with an XML schema. However with an XML schema it is also not possible to validate the correct use of the elements in a valid DC record.

 

Theo

 


Van: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Namens Ray Denenberg
Verzonden: donderdag 17 april 2008 14:31
Aan: [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: Re: the "dcxyz" schema

 

Yes, but what I meant by the question was this:  According to the Dublin Core documentation a DC record with zero elements is a valid DC record.   Is Theo proposing some non-empty "core"?   (If so we are on different paths.)

 

--Ray

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask]">Rob Sanderson

To: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:18 AM

Subject: Re: the "dcxyz" schema

 

On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 08:17 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
wrote:
> From: Theo van Veen
> "The DCX schema only has to express that the actual records contain
> enough DC elements to be useful for applications that can only use the
> DC elements."
>
> hat does  "enough DC elements to be useful"   mean?

It's much the same as the definition of which extensions are
"useful". ;)


Rob