Version 17 (modified by 15 years ago) (diff) | ,
---|
Metadata
The "DFG Practical Guidelines on Digitisation" (German, English) discuss some metadata issues.
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative:
- homepage, overview
- DCMI Metadata Terms: DCTERMS (main document), REVISIONS, DOMAINS
- DCMI Namespace Policy: NAMESPACE
- DCMI Abstract Model: DCAM
- DC and RDF: DC-RDF, DC-RDF-NOTES
- DC and XML: 2003 XML Guidelines, may soon be superseded by the proposed recommendation 2008 XML Guidelines, 2008 additional notes (there is also a 2006 working draft)
- software (mainly online tools), FAQ
The metadata module in our Relax NG compact schema.
Some questions:
- The definitions
dc.language = element dcterms:language { element rdf:Description { element dcq:languageScheme { "ISO 639-2" }, rdf.value } } dc.date = element dcterms:date { element rdf:Description { element dcq:dateScheme { "ISO 8601" }, rdf.value } }
seem to be obsolete. Especially dcq seems obsolete. I have replaced them by something which I believe is in accordance with Recommendation 7 in the 2003 XML Guidelines:
dc.language = element dcterms:language { attribute xsi:type { "dcterms:ISO639-3" }, text } dc.date = element dcterms:date { attribute xsi:type { "dcterms:W3CDTF" }, text }
(Maybe I should have left <rdf:value>
instead of "text"? But then, consequently ALL "text" in dcterms
definitions should in fact be <rdf:value>
.)
However, information is sparse. The syntax encoding schemes dcterms:W3CDTF
and dcterms:ISO639-3
do exist according to DCTERMS, but an up-to-date opinion about how to use syntax encoding schemes is difficult to obtain. The proposed recommendation 2008 XML Guidelines uses dcterm:date
only like this:
<dcterms:date>2005-05-05</dcterms:date> <dcterms:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date">2005-05-05</dcterms:date>
Any suggestions?
- Should we rename our
<metadata>
element? In all examples it is<ref:Description>
. However, in most examples it seems to mean the repository version of the metadata, not the version in the xml file itself.
- Do we need something like
<foaf:Person>
for creators, contributors, etc.? (I guess not; it doesn't seem have any particular advantage.)