2008/6/4 <>:
> Added minutes
> 9. Review of Requests for Enhancement
> a. 1964024: Formalize the adoption of Dublin Core in the info element[3]
>
> * From Jim's original request:
> """While DocBook already includes many of the elements that are defined by the
> Dublin Core, it is not inherently interoperable with DC metadata. The
> Publisher's SC (and hopefully the the DocBook TC) should consider adopting
> DC metadata as a formal metadata model for elements"""
> * Jim runs into this when doing interoperability work in the real world. DC is well-established.
> * Downside include:
> ** Dublin doesn't provide RNC or RNG versions of their schemas. We could always contribute this back to them and ask them to add it to the schemas they provide.
> ** Will people get confused between the similar (semantically) elements between DocBook and DC. Interoperability will be increased by using DC exclusively.
> ** DC does updates to their schemas. How do we sync? We'll just tie DocBook to a particular version, and make updates when we see fit.
> * Scott spoke to Norm about this. Norm expressed concerns about the semantically equivalent elements in the standard (dc:title, in particular) and the fact that dc:title might not be the same as db:title. This might make processing difficult. Perhaps we should do an either-or model? Jim has no problem with that (nor does Keith). Scott to attempt this.
> * Continue this discussion.
I hadn't considered overlap (dc:title db:title), but for other
metadata, a clean reference out to DC sounds like
a good idea to me. DC is well established now. It might be a good
service to offer the rng back to them.
I'm sure we could resolve the overlaps amicably (alternatives for
title for example).
In line with other docbook principles, ' make updates when we see
fit.' seems good.
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
