Use of "mandatory" confusing

My first reaction to this document (0.09) was to be upset at some of the mandatory properties.

I think that it just means that a consumer should consider such properties part of the record but has no obligation to do anything with them except keep them in the record and pass them on if the record is ever harvested into another system.

This could be clearer. I would suggest putting it inline in the text; it'll add to the length of the document but will avoid confusion. Something very short at the start of "Mandatory" sections such as "all recievers must consume and store these properties as part of the catalog record"






Thu, 04/04/2013 - 17:37


Please share your thoughts on the mandatory properties that upset you. It would be good to have comments and suggestions.

Concerning your proposal to make certain behaviour mandatory on the part of the consumer (receiver of data), there is a note at the end of chapter 5, that says that the receiver of data is obliged to "handle the data" but is not obliged to "make such information searchable or visible".

I am not sure that we should say more than that. It is my feeling that we cannot make it mandatory on the receiver to keep information "in the record" nor that we can make it an obligation to make that same information available for further harvesting. In a way, it puts an obligation on the receiver to keep harvested information as it was when it was harvested; this would make it impossible for an aggregator to enrich harvested metadata.


Mon, 22/04/2013 - 18:59

No deployment issues will be included in the specification, other than pointers to best practice in publishing open linked data and URI policies.

Mon, 22/04/2013 - 19:31

Tue, 23/04/2013 - 15:28

Hi, Makx, sorry for not responding sooner. I don't mind the meaning of the document at all. It's just worded in a way which I find confusing.

For example, I'm assuming this data is going to be RDF, in which case I really don't understand what "handle" means. If it's an XML standard and I misunderstood then it would make some sense.

It's just about how we convey the meaning as clearly as possible, and accepting that not everybody reads the full document.

Login or create an account to comment.