On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> 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.
How do you picture we could do this in practice? What would a
proposal look like and what would the outcome be?
> > > 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.
And could we put agent-related terms into the same namespace as
resource-related terms (more broadly) without needing to partition the
namespace, creating (for example) a separate Agent namespace? I hope
the answer is yes because I suspect it would be very problematic in
practice to make a clean distinction.
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
|