On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Renato Iannella wrote:
> This exactly why we separate Semantics from Syntax.
>
> Just because you can't do it in HTML does not mean that it must
> be rejected. That is just plain silly ;-)
>
> You can quite easily do Role as a qualifier using Simon's well
> crafted DCSV scheme [1].
>
> That is:
>
> < META NAME="DC.Contributor.Role" SCHEME="DCSV"
> CONTENT="Value:Illustrator; Scheme:AAT" >
No! You absolutely can *not* do that! That dumbs down to
DC.Contributor = Value:Illustrator; Scheme:AAT
The value does *not* name or 'identify' an agent. 'Role' does *not*
refine 'Contributor'.
This is an example of why it *is* useful to drop into syntax every so
often!
> Remember, we have not defined the formal HTML encoding for DCQ.
> The Datamodel WG is charged with doing that - and it can do that
> when it gets the *requirements* from the Usage Committee.
No, I agree we haven't finalised the syntax... but we do seem to have
agreed that the current voting round should be based on only the two
qualifier principles. 'Role' fits neither of those principles!
Andy
--
Distributed Systems and Services
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK [log in to unmask]
www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell Voice: +44 1225 323933
Resource Discovery Network - www.rdn.ac.uk Fax: +44 1225 826838
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|