Matola,Tod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The basic idea is that qualifiers should improve the precision of a piece of
> metadata, but the metadata should still be useful even without that extra
> precision (that is, dropping the qualifier has 'dumbed-down' the metadata.
> And yes, the term is silly. No one could think of anything better at the
> time.
Aha, I see now.
But isn't this just the definition of a qualifier? Or perhaps part of it?
Otherwise, you wouldn't be qualifying anything -- you'd be creating a new
term.
--
[ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
|