On Thu, 31 May 2001, Wagner,Harry wrote:
> I have to agree with Dan on this. It is apparent (to me anyway) that we are
> not going to find a naming convention that satisfies everyone. Let's go
> with what the current draft has - 'http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' and
> move forward.
This is consistent with my proposal, which considers the "1.1"
namespace to be a legacy product that will remain (for now at least)
stable and "at the core" of a larger, growing vocabulary.
Putting all new elements -- not just qualifiers -- into a separate
namespace saves us the embarrassment of implying that "the Dublin Core
1.1" now has 16 elements, wait... 19, oops make that 21...
And it relieves us of the need to assign a new property to one of two
namespaces based on whether it is an entirely new property (in which
case it would go into dc:) or a subproperty of an existing dc: property
(in which case it would go into dcq:). Hence:
dc: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ - the legacy "Core"
dcq: http://purl.org/dc/other/ | choose
http://purl.org/dc/terms/ | one
dcmitype: http://purl.org/vocabularies/dcmitype/ | choose
http://purl.org/dcmitype/ | one
If we stick with http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/, then for the sake of
consistency I would prefer http://purl.org over http://dublincore.org.
Tom
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
|