[OAI-implementers] XSD file for qualified DC

[Tim Brody]

[Carl's summary, with a new point 3]
1. Detailed Citation data about a resource and data about its references
are important imformation to make available
2. This information does not fit into the purposely simplistic (and very
useful) DC data model (qualified or unqualified)
3. This should be achieved through a parallel format to oai_dc

Read on ...

[DC/q/Citation]

Thank you to Ann and Carl for providing very informative responses:
If I can summarise by saying DC/q can only describe one level of
relationship, e.g.:
Item -> Author
Item -> URI

While reference data requires two levels:
Item A -> Item B -> Author
Item A -> Item B -> URI

(So <dcq:citation/> fits with the DC model, while
<dcq:references><dcq:citation/> does not)

[OpenURL/DC]

Reading Andy Powell's and Ann's Ariadne article:
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue27/metadata/

You describe how an OpenURL URI could be used within "dcq:citation" and
"dcq:references" to provide citation descriptions.

You succinctly summarise my worries with OpenURL in a DC world:
"Therefore, the OpenURL DESCRIPTION appears to offer all the functionality
identified by the working group for encoding bibliographic citations for
simple resource discovery, albeit using a less human-readable syntax than
that proposed by the working group.   However, it may not offer the required
functionality for individual Dublin Core based applications."

Putting these into two points:

1) I have always got the feeling OpenURL deals with the "ideal" world. For
my application, whether something is a conference proceeding, or journal
article, isn't useful (and probably can't be determined). What is useful is
knowing that this "thing" has a title, and an author, that can be compared
to titles and authors in a database (most likely DC records).

2) In XML, I suspect a more elegant syntax could be used than OpenURL (which
uses overloading to cope with name=value URIs).

I want to use OpenURL if it is the right choice, not because it is the only
choice. And at the moment, I don't think its the right choice - hence my
suggestion for a "DC-inspired" format :-)

Regards,
Tim.