Eric, Ren, et al;
At 7:24 AM -0500 3/23/00, Miller,Eric wrote:
> > --On 22/3/00 11:28 AM -0500 Miller,Eric wrote:
> >
> > > Thus for any data element defined by the DCMI we would have
> > as an example:
> > >
> > > Label: Is Part Of
> > > Definition: The described resource is a physical or logical...
> > > Qualifier Type: Element Refinement
> > > Name: isPartOf
> > > Namespace: http://purl.org/dc/eor/2000/03/13/dc-realtion#
> >
> > I assume Label and Title should be swapped around?
>
>not sure...
>
> > I would not put "namespace" in as this is technology-dependent.
>
>per earlier message [1] I'm not advocating using this in the ballot. Just
>making a referencable observation about an very good point that Andy brought
>up that may be helpful in sorting some of this out.
I'm not going to put it in the proposed language I'm preparing as per
my post on this yesterday. Sorry don't have the email archive url
handy.
>
> > The issues boils down to if you use Label or Identifier,
> > or more correctly, do you want to follow an international
> > standard or your own.
>
>If you're referring to ISO11179 as the international standard in this
>context, than I would suggest our own. Again, ISO11179 is vague on the
>areas where we want to be very explicit.
I'm with Eric on this. ISO 11179 doesn't get us what we want.
JP
>
>eric
>
>[1] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-03/0138.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|