On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Andy Powell wrote:
> > If we were all to agree on this, then we would have the following
> > options:
> >
> > 1) We leave dcq:alternative alone (along with Created, Valid,
> > Available, Issued, Modified, Spatial, and Temporal) and switch
> > to using stand-alone names in the future.
> >
> > 2) We change their names in both the Recommendation document and
> > in the RDF schema thereof.
> >
> > 3) We create a redundant set of names (e.g., dcq:alternativeTitle)
> > with equivalency relationships to the existing names.
> >
> > What would you propose?
>
> Tom,
> sorry for the delayed response. I doubt if option 2) is possible. I like
> 3) but I don't know if it is technically possible. I could live with 1)
> though I don't think it is ideal.
>
> I guess I'd recommend further investigation of the technical possibilities
> and implications of option 3)...
Andy,
I am in favor of investigating the possibilities of option 3, but it is
not clear to me what we should do about it right now unless a volunteer
steps forward to track this issue.
Unless someone does volunteer, I'm in favor of living with option 1.
Are we in fact all in agreement that "stand-alone" names should be used
in future for element refinements? (PLEASE RESPOND.) If so, do we
need to capture this policy somewhere in our documentation?
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
|