[Om3] DC metadata for content dictionaries

[Professor James Davenport]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Christoph LANGE wrote:
> generic, so it makes sense to me to reuse vocabulary from well-known 
> ontologies like Dublin Core. I found the following reasonable mappings:
Absolutely right. 
> CDName = dc:identifier
This one I am slightly dubious about (for no good reason otehr than 
suspicion): CDname has an internal meaning for us - are you sure tehre 
aren't side-effects?
> Description = dc:description
> CDDate = dc:date
> CDComment = rdfs:comment
Agreed.
Are there any more we can/should steal?
> 
> Other properties like CDBase, which are not available in some common external 
> ontology, I defined myself. But for those we can use e.g. from DC, wouldn't 
> it make sense to use the DC terms in the OpenMath XML markup altogether, and 
> to allow the full set of DC (see 
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/)? There are more interesting 
> properties there, such as dateSubmitted, or license, which are not part of 
> OM2. The result would then look like this (with proper namespace 
> declarations):
> 
> <CD>
>   <dc:identifier>arith1</dc:identifier>
>   <dc:description>Arithmetical operators</dc:description>
>   <dc:dateSubmitted>1999-01-01</dc:dateSubmitted>
>   ...
> </CD>
Looks good for me.
> 
> And now that we are at it, what would you think about allowing these metadata 
> for subsections of CDs as well? That is, for CDDefinition, Example, 
> Signature, …?
This I need to think about, since we have hitherto viewed a CD as being a 
monolithic object. But I'm not against it.
James