At 09:20 +0000 2000-12-21, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>It seems to me this whole debate arose from a wish to use dc:date to
>describe this information. ...
[snip]
>... I'd say you had four (not
>mutually exclusive) choices:
>
>ii) You could use a SICI in dc:identifier, where the Chronology piece would
>indicate Spring by "21".
So rather than using the ISO-8601 scheme with non-ISO-8601 dates, use
the SICI scheme with SICI codes? Sounds like a good idea to me :)
>iii) You could follow the recommendations of the dc-citation Working Group
>and put the following into dc:identifier for the issue - "Journal of
>Metaphysical Metadata (Spring 2000), Volume 1, Issue 1". (See the
>discussion list archives at
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-citation.html.)
This is good for human-readable content, but for machine-readable
versions, my choice would be to have a repeated dc:date using the
SICI code. An alternative is to attempt to parse the string, in the
hope that the people encoding it are following the same "standard"
that you are, and that the encoding scheme prevents ambiguity in the
encoding.
I wonder if there's room in a "Dublin Core Query Language" to specify
"I understand these schemes for these fields"?
>iv) You could mention that it's the Spring issue in dc:description.
Once again, great for getting the message across to humans, but not
necessarily good for machine-readability (required for things like
sorting or searching).
Regards
Alex Satrapa
FWIW: "Interoperability Standard: n. A delicate balance between the
laziness of database and human interface programmers, the hubris of
the data structures experts, and the impatience of stakeholders and
sponsors."
|