> From [log in to unmask] Wed Jun 13 11:07 MET 2001
> X-Meta: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <rdf:Description about="">
> <dc:publisher> UKOLN
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:57:15 +0100
> From: Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Agent Core?
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote:
>
> > However, UB didn't even look at the IEEE elements, officially (of
> > course, we peeked...). It was out of our scope, and our Recommendation
> > makes no reference to them. By analogy, I should think we would not
> > officially care which elements of vCard were recommended, since we (as
> > the Usage Board) would not be adding our own Recommendation.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > This first statement makes about as much sense as DCMI telling MARC how to
> > > handle names from DC records. And we'd only be making statements about the
> > > usefulness of the relator terms (or anybody else's terms) in reference to
> > > our view of the world, not about how they might use the same terms. I
> > > think that's legit for us to do. If not us, who?
> >
> > Hmm. You say yes, Andy says no... I think it would be nice if UB could
> > make some statement with regard to the MARC relator terms, but it is unclear
> > to me how best to do this.
>
> I'll try and clarify why I said no (especially seeing as I suggested it in
> the first place!). In theory, I think it would be quite sensibly within
> our scope for us to make statements of the form 'element X (from some
> non-DCMI namespace) is a valid refinement of element Y (from a DCMI
> namespace)'. In practice I'm concerned about two things. Firstly, there
> may well be an awful lot of Xs out there for us to make such
> statements about! Secondly, assuming we don't manage to make statements
> about all possible Xs, then are we implicity giving some DCMI credibility
> to those Xs that we do choose to make statements about? If so, is that a
> problem? Is that what we want to do?
I don't think this is discriminating others. It's saying: DCMI has looked at the stuff and concludes the following relations...
I view it as a tool to promote interoperability between vocabularies.
>
> > I believe the fundamental issue is: to what class of objects does our
> > vocabulary refer? Is the term "resource" broad enough to cover
> > "people" ("agents")?
Yes it is.
Cheers
rs
>
> I very much agree that this is a fundamental issue - and one that is
> crucial to DCMI. I'm amazed that DCMI doesn't have an agreed definition
> for 'resource'. It's not a UB issue however?
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems and Services
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK [log in to unmask]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell Voice: +44 1225 323933
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/ Fax: +44 1225 826838
>
|