On Wed, 30 May 2001, Thomas Baker wrote:

> Andy,
>
> I'm shifting this to the JISCMAIL list...
>
> If people are using dcq:alternative in a stand-alone manner in their
> metadata, then I agree we should henceforth use only stand-alone
> names.
>
> 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)...

> 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
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:35:47 +0100 (BST)
> From: Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]>
>
> All,
> We did well to get thru the agenda last week! :-)  In fact, I was so
> suprised we made it thru I forgot to push the issue of how we name element
> refinements.  I know we touched on this issue during the meeting... and I
> understand that people are reluctant to re-open the issue of whether
> element refinements are refinements of existing elements or whether the
> combination of an element and a refinement simply gives you a new element.
>
> ***Ignore that issue*** (for now at least!). It is not the important
> issue! What is important is that we have not been consistent in how we
> name element refinements (see below).  The current draft proposal for
> qualified DC in RDF means that we will see RDF metadata like this
>
>    <dcq:alternative>
>       Das Boot
>    </dcq:alternative>
>
> because of the way we have chosen to name "Alternative Title" (which is
> what we really mean here).  This is much less intuitive than, say,
>
>    <dcq:alternativeTitle>
>       Das Boot
>    </dcq:alternativeTitle>
>
> As long as we are all happy with our current naming, then fine... I will
> shut up.  My personal view is that this form of naming will prove to be
> very confusing to people.
>
> Andy.
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Andy Powell wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> > I apologise for raising this late in the day, but it is an important issue
> > that has been raised before and that has not, as far as I'm aware, been
> > resolved to date.
> >
> > The issue concerns the naming of element refinements and should be
> > discussed as part of your foundation principles (I think!).  If one looks
> > at the current set of element refinements
> >
> > Alternative
> > Table Of Contents
> > Abstract
> > Created
> > Valid
> > Available
> > Issued
> > Modified
> > Extent
> > Medium
> > Is Version Of
> > Has Version
> > Is Replaced By
> > Replaces
> > Is Required By
> > Requires
> > Is Part Of
> > Has Part
> > Is Referenced By
> > References
> > Is Format Of
> > Has Format
> > Spatial
> > Temporal
> >
> > some of these are named such that they stand-alone (essentially as new
> > elements):
> >
> > Table Of Contents
> > Abstract
> > Extent
> > Medium
> > Is Version Of
> > Has Version
> > Is Replaced By
> > Replaces
> > Is Required By
> > Requires
> > Is Part Of
> > Has Part
> > Is Referenced By
> > References
> > Is Format Of
> > Has Format
> >
> > while others only make sense in the context of the element that they
> > refine:
> >
> > Alternative
> > Created
> > Valid
> > Available
> > Issued
> > Modified
> > Spatial
> > Temporal
> >
> > We have not been consistent in the way that we name element refinements.
> >
> > My personal view is that the names of element refinements should
> > stand-alone (and that we should re-name Alternative, Created, Valid,
> > Available, Issued, Modified, Spatial and Temporal as soon as possible).
> > This is because, IMHO, we are really creating new elements that just
> > happen to be refinements of existing elements.
> >
> > As usual, our historical ties to HTML meta tags have led us down the wrong
> > path...
> >
> > <meta name="DC.title.alternative" ...>
> >
> > is fine but
> >
> > <dcq:alternative>
> >
> > in XML or RDF is not.
> >
> > I hate to say this, but I also think that the grammatical
> > principles/modelling we use hinders rather than helps in this area.
>

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