[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As stated in the paper, this shouldn't be done since the simple resource
> centric model and the sloppiness of the elements is incapable of
> expressing such complex descriptions.
I believe I have already refuted the example you gave in your article as
limitation of the specific syntax used, not of the generic DC model. Could
you perhaps provide a specific example that demonstrates the problem with
the model?
If there is not problem with the model, and it is merely an issue of syntax,
then I believe that we should correct the syntax, not throw away all this
functionality.
> I feel like we're looping back with an RDF slight of hand to a place
> that has led us into considerable trouble - the advocation of a model
> where the DC elements can serve as containers for arbitrarily complex
> information.
I believe that attempting to prevent this is as futile as trying to fight
the tide. It seems only logical that this is how DC elements should be used,
and so I believe that they will be used this way. If you want to present
guidelines on how to make sure that DC statements are semantically valid, I
would agree with doing that, but trying to prevent this altogether is, IMHO,
nonsense.
--
[ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
|