View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:38 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
How to describe the relatedInfo type 'metadata' 
Author Message
ANDS Staff
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:18 am
Posts: 76
Suggestion from Duncan Dickinson:

The least controversial form may appear as per the code below. This would require no work from implementers unless they wanted to add the format
element (which I think would be optional):

<relatedInfo type=”metadata”>
    <title>EML</title>
    <identifier="http://data.example.com/meta-eml.xml" type=”uri”/>
    <format>
      <identifier type="uri">http://some.schema.location/</identifier>
      <identifier type="internet-media">application/blah+xml</identifier>
    </format>
    <notes>This is the EML version of the metadata</notes>
</relatedInfo>

The other version I suggested is to treat the relatedInfo as a location rather than an identifier. This has a larger impact on the relatedInfo element but I would suggest it better indicates intent - the relatedInfo is a location to which the user can go and get something rather than an identifier. The controlled vocab doesn't allow for a URL type on identifier (http://services.ands.org.au/documentati ... aries.html) but the example in the CPG shows one in use (http://ands.org.au/guides/cpguide/cpgrelatedinfo.html):

<relatedInfo type=”metadata”>
    <title>EML</title>
    <location>
      <address>
        <electronic>
        <value type="url">http://data.example.com/meta-eml.xml</value>
        </electronic>
        <format>
          <identifier type="uri">http://some.schema.location/</identifier>
          <identifier type="internet-media">application/blah+xml</identifier>
        </format>
      </address>
    </location>
    <notes>This is the EML version of the metadata</notes>
</relatedInfo>


Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:05 pm
Profile
ANDS Partners
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 9
I tend to favour the first option I think. It's simpler, to the same effect. One could argue that the <location> element provides clearer semantics, but URLs are just a particular subset of URIs, and I tend to think that using "http" as your URI scheme actually implies that it's a locator (a URL) anyway, rather than just an identifier.


Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:30 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.