Suggest dot-syntax for SRAP

[kcoyle]

email from Tom Baker, for reference

The "dot-encoding convention" began at the Canberra workshop in 1997
[3], was written up in 1999 as RFC 2731 (about encoding "Dublin Core
metadata" in HTML) [4] and then in 2003 (specifically about encoding
Qualified Dublin Core in HTML) [5,6]. These were all about using the dot
syntax in HTML. Somewhere along the line I guess the repository software
developers picked up on the dot syntax too.

As far as I can tell, the guidelines for Dublin Core in XML [7] only
ever used namespace prefixes with colons. The XML schemas for QDC are
still available at dublincore.org [1], the latest word on which was the
2008 "Notes on the W3C XML Schemas for Qualified Dublin Core" by Pete
Johnston et al [2].

So I don't believe QDC was ever actually "deprecated" as a model. It's
more like attention has continually shifted to the entity-oriented model
as RDF moved more into the mainstream with Linked Data, Bibframe, and
the like.

As for the dot syntax: in the DCMI context, the HTML META syntaxes
became less relevant with the rise of alternatives such as RDFa. I'm
sure there have been DC conference papers over the years that touch on
the use of dot syntax in repository systems but it hasn't been the focus
of DCMI working groups the way HTML and XML were in the 2000s. So there,
too, it's more like the dot syntax has simply faded from view.

So the point above could perhaps be reworded to something like:

The flat Qualified Dublin Core model (QDC) and the dot syntax
(dc.date.issued, dc.title.alternative) have been largely superseded
since the 2000s by newer entity-oriented styles of metadata.

• QDC is widely used in repository systems, content management systems etc.
• SRAP WG is looking at possibilities of expressing SRAP using QDC to make
  it possible to use it in legacy systems.

DCMI has occasionally used the term "legacy" in reference to older
styles of metadata since at least 2008 [8], so no problem there.

Tom

[1] https://www.dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/
[2] https://www.dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2008/02/11/notes/
[3] https://www.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.html
[4] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt
[5] https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcq-html/2003-11-30/
[6] https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dc-html/
[7] https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dc-xml-guidelines/
[8] https://www.dublincore.org/news/2008/01-14-major-update-of-dcmi-metadata-terms-documentation/

--
Tom Baker [email protected]

[kcoyle]

As our purpose here is to create a base standard profile, we could suggest dc.dot usage, perhaps in a separate specification. Ideally it would still follow SRAP as much as possible. For example, creator and contributor could be followed by the display form of the LC relators:

dc:creator.illustrator
dc:contributor.opponent

More difficult are the container shapes of periodical and book. I suppose we could suggest using the shapeID:

dc:partOf.periodical
dc:partOf.book

[kcoyle]

Can we create a DCTAP that has the dot syntax? It would be a profile of the SRAP, a profile of a profile, but that is exactly what DCTAP should be good for. It's a way to document usage.

[kcoyle]

Sorry my thoughts are coming in small chunks, but: The main issue with the dot syntax is that it cannot be associated with a namespace since there is no defined namespace for the combination of a DC term and the follow-on syntax. DCTAP does not require that the properties be RDF-defined, though, so we still can provide an example in DCTAP.