On further reflection: my opposition to stamping "Dublin Core" on lots
of things besides the original Element Set dates back to a time when
there was talk about branching out into different types of metadata
besides simple resource discovery. This hasn't happened, so perhaps we
_should_ use "Dublin Core" more generally than for "the Dublin Core"
per se -- ie, for a small vocabulary for cross-domain resource
discovery following particular principles.
I hate to keep posting on this old issue, but we should at least have
an answer to "What is the Dublin Core?"
What do others think?
Tom
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote:
> There have been noisy discussions about this in the past. "Dublin
> Core" is problematic as a name, but we're stuck with it.
>
> The issue is whether "the Dublin Core" is a well-known set of fifteen
> "core" elements printed on tee-shirts, or whether "Dublin Core" has in
> fact turned into a generic brand name that can and should be stamped
> onto other products of this process, such as technical specs,
> qualifiers, controlled vocabularies, and various other "non-core"
> elements.
>
> I have always come down very strongly on the side of seeing "the Dublin
> Core" as that small set of "core" elements, even if that set may evolve
> a bit over time. Using the string "DCMI" has the advantage of not
> implying "coreness" or muddying the identity of "the Dublin Core". For
> the past year, at any rate, DCMI has been using "DCMI" pretty
> consistently in the names of working groups, in press releases, and on
> the Web site. I take your point about future organizations controlling
> the namespace but do not see this as a major problem.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> > Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > 2) http://purl.org/dc/terms/ - "Dublin Core terms" (no!)
> >
> > I understand that there is a lot of confusion over DC vs. DCMI, etc.
> > However, I personally feel that keeping the purl.org/dc/ is important for
> > consistency and understandability. As others have said, Dublin Core has
> > become a "brand name" -- DCMI has not. People understand what DC and Dublin
> > Core are -- in fact, the DCMI website is at dublincore.org.
> >
> > In addition to that, there is another distinction I see. Dublin Core is a
> > concept -- an idea. DCMI is an organization. The Dublin Core terms will live
> > on long after the DCMI is gone. In fact, it is possible that in the future a
> > new organization will take control of the creation of Dublin Core terms, in
> > which case they should have an appropriate namespace.
> >
> > Please, let's just leave it at DC.
> >
> > --
> > [ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
> GMD Library
> Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
> 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
|