Phonetics for OPC metadata

Arms, Caroline caar at
Mon Feb 27 21:45:54 CET 2012


I think comments I made on DR-10-0026
for example, about needing to be able to repeat elements and to group elements that are different representations for the same thing probably apply here as well.  I think other people's comments on this DR should be considered too.

Since OPC purports to use Dublin Core metadata, I would prefer not to do anything that is inconsistent with the DC abstract model or usage recommendations.  I certainly would not expect (3) to fit the bill, although I'm not sure where I would find the evidence.  So, of your two choices presented at the end, I would prefer (1).  

I am strongly in favor of allowing the embedding of metadata records in other schemas (as appropriate for the document's context and content) as parts in a document package -- and having a commonly implemented way to do that.  I have always felt that the metadata component of OPC was inadequate, but that the right way to express richer metadata would be context specific.  For example, ONIX is what you would want for a published book; but IPTC4XMP or PLUS could be what you want in graphics contexts; and ISO 19115 for a spreadsheet with geospatial data.  

Whether my vision could be achieved simply through changes to OPC or requires Part 3, I wouldn't hazard to guess.  But maybe it can be out there as something to think about.


PS I could ask my best Dublin Core contact -- who is certainly up on internationalization, having lived in Thailand for several years -- if he has any view on the matter.  But only if others feel that is a worthwhile thing to do.

Caroline Arms
Library of Congress Contractor
Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource

** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the institution **
From: eb2mmrt at [eb2mmrt at] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto [eb2m-mrt at]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:58 PM
To: SC34
Subject: Phonetics for OPC metadata

Dear colleagues,

I am wondering how we can add phonetics for Japanese Kanji text
as part of OPC metadata.

There are four approaches:

1) Introduce a phonetics element for each of the metadata elements,
2) Introduce an attribute to each of the metadata elements
3) Allow the use of HTML ruby (and bidi) as part of the existing
metadata elements
4) Allow the use of Unicode ruby characters as part of the existing
metadata elements

ONIX has adopted 3).  Made-in-Japan metadata schemas (such as DC-NDL)
use 1).  Which do people here prefer?

Note: Neither Atom nor ODF is free from this problem.  Ideally, the
same solution should
be used everywhere.


More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list