> From [log in to unmask] Tue Oct 1 11:56 MET 2002
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> X-Scanner: exiscan *17wJlI-000Kfy-00*qoWx1T1dhkc* (Manchester Computing,
> University of Manchester)
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:56:16 GMT1BST
> From: Ann Apps <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Expressing Qualified Dublin Core i
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Andy, and All,
>
> Comments on the proposed 'Expressing Qualified Dublin Core in
> HTML/XHTML meta elements.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ann
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Terminology: resource. I think including 'human beings' as an
> example of a resource may be rather contentious,
Why?
> and so shouldn't
> really be in this document. There is no DCMI Type for human
> beings - in fact they were explicitly excluded.
By whom?
> The same may apply
> to corporations. I don't wish to start an argument here on this
> subject - I just think this document is the wrong place to raise the
> issue.
You just have done it....
>
> 2. Is there a good reason for changing the case of the first letter of
> elements, eg DC.Date to DC.date? I realise you have dealt with
> this in section 3, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient. I would guess
> there is a lot of DC within HTML meta tags out there. The existing
> recommendations have been in place for a long time and are linked
> from the DC website via the Usage Guide. 'Encoding Dublin Core
> Metadata in HTML' at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt is dated
> 1999. Are you proposing that this recommendation also be
> changed?
IMO the draft should be on XHTML encoding.
>
> There is also a knock-on effect to local recommendations - I
> suspect there are a lot of these. For example, a few months ago I
> wrote local recommendations for adding DC metadata to our web
> pages as part of our 'make web pages accessible' exercise
> (because of the UK disability legislation). I wrote these following
> recommendations on the DC website, eg to use DC.Date. If these
> proposed recommendations are accepted, do I then have to change
> my local recomemndations? Then we would have inconsistent 'new'
> and 'old' pages.
>
> I think you need to be aware that those who are encoding DC in
> HTML are generally not conversant with XML architectures, etc,
> and it will be dificult to explain why the existing guidelines, which
> have been in place for a long time, have been changed. It will not do
> anything for the image of DC 'out there'!
You issued coding recommendations for XHTML ???
>
> I think it would be better to say something less strong like: either
> DC.Date or DC.date is acceptable, but the latter is preferred.
Here DC wants to be more liberal than XHTML - so specific care
has to be taken.
>
> 3. In 2.1, last paragraph about CDATA. maybe it would be a good
> idea to point out explicitly that &, <, > should encoded as
> character entities, ie. &, etc, if included in the 'content'
> string. Again this document will be read by people who don't
> understand what CDATA means.
But the know about character entities?
>
> 4. 2.6 Namespaces. As this is a guidelines document,
> maybe a
> title string should be included in the namespace declarations:
>
> <link rel="schema.DC" href="..." title="Dublin Core Metadata
> Element Set, Version 1.1" />
> <link rel="schema.DCTERMS" href="..." title="DCMI Elements and
> DCMI Qualifiers" />
Is it really a good idea to continue with this use of the <link>
element?
rs
|