Problem
|
Proposed solution
|
Currently we have succeeded quite well in the DC/DCQ
compatibility, but there are several places where this is somewhat complex.
These include:
dc:creator and dcq:created are semantically
connected, as are dc:publisher and dcq:issued ,
but this is not reflected in DCQ. Several publising dates and/or creation
dates will create difficulties, and is incompatible with LOM.
dc:subject is mapped to both classification
and keyword
|
Difficult... No good DC and LOM compatible solution.
Use workaround for now.
|
How do we model translations of titles, etc.? DCQ/RDF
is not 100% clear here. Also, the current model does not support the xml:lang
construct, which we probably want, as this has recently been clarified
by the RDF Core WG, and is recommended in the latest DCQ/RDF draft. Also,
do we need a LangString class?
|
The current model has been changed.
xml:lang support has been added
lom:translation has been removed, as this contains
information far outside what is defined in the LOM info model.
|
We need to update to LOM a,0 and to the latest
DCQ/RDF draft. This means we are leaving IMS 1.2 behind.
|
Should be complete now.
|
What should be the recommended use of the dc:identifier
element?
|
It is enabled. The difficult issue of what to do
with catalogentry has been dealt with in a nice manner!
|
4.4 Technical requirements are so ugly currently.
Will need to be remodeled.
|
Hes been remodeled, and the current implementation
was found to be the best so far.
|
5.2 Learning Resource Type is not 100% LOM compatible.
|
Cannot really be solved without interpreting rdfs:range
to imply Containers are allowed.
|
7 Relation is modeled very differently from LOM
|
Should probably be kept as is.
|
9 Classification is modeled very differently from
LOM
|
Should probably remain similar to current implementation.
Has not been changed.
|
Use xml:base in schemas
|
Done.
|
Typos (InteractivitType)
|
Done.
|