Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Tod Matola <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >> PURLs are the best-practice for namespaces, and
> >> have a persistence and permanence that I doubt dublincore.org will have.
> > Why what evidence is there that this is the case?
>
> <q cite="http://purl.oclc.org/OCLC/PURL/FAQ">
> OCLC has long been committed to facilitating access to the world's
> information, and that commitment stands behind PURLs, too.
> </q>
http://purl.oclc.org/OCLC/PURL/CONTRIBUTORS
(NOTE: Stu, Eric (just recently moved from OCLC) and myself are employees of OCLC).
Purls are work Stu and Eric's did prior to DC work. Hence the relationship.
>
> The Dublin Core site has no such commitment, and even if it did, DCMI
> doesn't inspire the trust that an institution like OCLC does.
OCLC is a host organization to DCMI. They provide the same network that brings you
the Purl service. I would venture to say OCLC has a fair stake in DCMI. The
previous website actually ran on the same web server as the purl server (those
weren't purls they were files).
>
>
> >> I believe the issues of permanence are more important than any "brand"
> >> issues.
> > Why isn't an organization's brand important?
>
> Brand is important when you are competing, or trying to convince someone to
> sell something. Dublin Core doesn't sell anything, and we don't really
> compete against anybody, so I don't see why it's so important.
>
Only with other standards bodies.
Cheers Tod Matola
DCMI/OCLC
[log in to unmask]
|