why do we have the complicated URIs in our examples? surely we just want a straight URI of the kind http://.....?
Liddy
Because you don't want to exclude ISBN, ISSN, DOI, etc. Strictly speaking those are not URIs. We want to be inclusive here and say that any standard way of referencing resources can be used. The LOM does this nicely by using a structure that allows one to explicitly state the referencing technique (catalog), and then the actual encoding of the identifier (entry). Dublin Core provides another standard way of accomplishing this, but I don't know the details.
However, this does raise an issue of how to reflect this in our examples. Maybe we should create a generic <resourceReference> element that indicates that lom.identifier, dc.identifier, etc. can be used here to reference a resource.
Joseph
A thought about the complete example of the accessibility element. The ![[WWW]](/wiki/dcmi/img/moin-www.png){kind=small}
CanCore LOM guidelines do not actually list an example for the root element (lom). Instead, it provides a "chapter" for each of the major categories (General, Lifecyle, Technical, etc.).
There is wisdom in this since a full example can be quite lengthy and one can get lost in its complexity. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here in that the documentation of accessiblity simply state that it is a container of the other elements, and then list them to show a skeletal structure. The reader can then go to each of them for the details on that element.
Joseph