Difference between revisions of "Talk:ESciDoc Application Profiles"
(→Closed: date remarks moved to list of closed issues) |
|||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
... are used to provide further remarks and cataloging recommendation to users of the application profile. Inga is responsible to deliver this information. | ... are used to provide further remarks and cataloging recommendation to users of the application profile. Inga is responsible to deliver this information. | ||
== Complex Type for Date == | |||
Date: We do have more date types, e.g. publication, publication-online | |||
Has been flatten to explicit elements, e.g. dcterms:created --[[User:Inga|Inga]] 12:22, 29 February 2008 (CET) | |||
Revision as of 11:22, 29 February 2008
This page lists issues from our discussion while defining the eSciDoc application profile.
Open[edit]
Complex Elements[edit]
The proposed data model for a complex type like "Creator" in eSciDoc looks like this:
- Creator, with properties
- CreatorType, which can either be:
- Person, which has the following properties:
- Complete Name
- Family Name
- Given Name
- Alternative Name
- Person Title
- Pseudonym
- Organisation
- Identifier
- Organisation, with the following properties:
- Oranisation Name
- Address
- Identifier
- Person, which has the following properties:
- Creator Type has a further property:
- Creator Role, which can be:
- Author
- Artist
- Editor, ....
- Creator Role, which can be:
- CreatorType, which can either be:
Further resources/requirements under work[edit]
- Functional changes under discussion for r3, see https://zim01.gwdg.de/trac/wiki/MDSSpec/Revision
- Requirements regarding copyrights, see http://colab.mpdl.mpg.de/mediawiki/EDoc_to_PubMan_migration#Copyright_Information
Namespaces[edit]
Currently, URLs for eSciDoc namespaces do not resolve to anything useful:
- http://escidoc.mpg.de/metadataprofile/schema/0.1/types
- http://escidoc.mpg.de/metadataprofile/schema/0.1/idtypes
This should be changed, and they should be made persistent (possibly using PURL?).
Responsible: Natasa & Lars
Usage of dc:source[edit]
dc:source is used against DC semantics and should be changed to "isPartOf". In addition, the element bibliographicCitation has been created to improve interoperability (should be available twice: maschine-readable as well as human-readable). See also: Guidelines for Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core Metadata
Usage of dc:creator[edit]
dc:creator is used against DC semantics. Two options:
* introduce the understanding of "primary creator" to pubman (-> could be stored in dc:creator) * use the dc:contributor element + role (re-use from loc)
Closed[edit]
Components[edit]
from the discussion on 30th of January: Introduce distinction between metadata (e.g. format, description, content category) and properties (e.g. date-created, etc?)
Further process of splitting the component information agreed with FIZ, see mails between Frank and Natasa --Inga 18:02, 1 February 2008 (CET)
Repeating refinements defined in existing AP?[edit]
Question: Do we need to document refinements which are inherited from external sources? Example: For "alternative" we currently repeat the information ("Refines http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title") from dcterms, the same is not done for "tableofcontents" (refines http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/description)
Result from meeting with Traugott, Andreas, Kristina and Inga from 31st of January: The application profile should be self-contained, thus all refinements used by the eSciDoc AP should be explicitly specified, even the information is just replicated from the external AP. --Inga 22:41, 31 January 2008 (CET)
Best Practices[edit]
... are used to provide further remarks and cataloging recommendation to users of the application profile. Inga is responsible to deliver this information.
Complex Type for Date[edit]
Date: We do have more date types, e.g. publication, publication-online
Has been flatten to explicit elements, e.g. dcterms:created --Inga 12:22, 29 February 2008 (CET)