Rachel said:

> If I can re-state my case. I think the term 'Simple DC' is
> potentially ambiguous, and as it is being defined as
> synonymous with Dublin Core Metadata Element Set V1.1
> (DCMES), I think it would be more helpful to use that more
> precise terminology, particularly in technical documents.

But Andy and I were/are _not_ using "Simple DC" as synonymous with "the
DCMES V1.1".

We were using "Simple DC" (umambiguously, we hoped!) to mean the
elements of the DCMES V1.1 used as properties of a resource in a
_particular_ way, defined at section 4.1 of

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-xml-guidelines/

where all properties were optional and repeatable, and property values
were limited to strings and in addition could carry an optional language
indicator.

In your message at the start of this thread, you mentioned that "common
usage" of the expression was unclear. Yes, I agree with you that very
often uses of the expression "Simple DC" _are_ ambiguous, precisely
because we tend (and I certainly did in the past) to use the expression
"Simple DC" without being explicit about what we mean, and the danger is
that we engage in a dialogue assuming a shared understanding of the
expression and that shared understanding doesn't always exist.

However, Andy's description/definition of "Simple DC" was an attempt to
remove any ambiguity in his/our use of the expression in that document -
and also to test whether that definition is one on which we do agree.

I think this was a Good Thing. It meant we could have the discussion
("Oh, I always thought Simple DC included 'audience'", "Oh, I used
Simple DC to include structured values" etc etc etc). I see it as
constructive for us to have those exchanges, to see clearly where our
assumptions of shared understanding actually concealed differences, and
hopefully to arrive at consensus on an unambiguous definition.

I really don't think that the fact that we have used "Simple DC" without
precision in the past is a reason not to try to define it now.

But if that ambiguous past usage of "Simple DC" really is an absolute
barrier to our pinning down meaning now, OK.... But in that case I'd
suggest we need another name for that "most dumbed-down form" of use of
the DCMES described by Andy's definition. Whatever label we give it, I
think the messages here:

[Dan Brickley]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=9193

[Thomas Krichel]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=9327

[Stu Weibel]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=9468

all recognised the fundamental value of this fully specified, "simple"
usage of the DCMES.

Cheers

Pete