Doug
good idea but the problem with that,. as I understand it, is that
people wanting the resource want to know about the metadata sometimes
(eg for accessibility reasons) and so they would not want it to be
hidden away - if the proposal for dc:admin is for that to be with the
other metadata, that's fine, but we have always had ours separate ...
(cos it's metametadata!)
BTW - for accessibility purposes - the user of the resource might
actually need to have an agent work on something contained in the
metadata before they actually access the resource - that's why they
need it - not just that the owner of the metadata needs admin metadata
to look after the metadata they have.
but tell me if this is not a real distinction - please.
Liddy
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 08:14 AM, Douglas Campbell wrote:
> Liddy,
>
>>>> Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]> 10/06/03 01:13:57
> Here I have been thinking about some way that we could say that our
> metadata conforms to some standard - ... but the problem is that it is
> the metadata not the resource that is conforming, so it does not make
> a
> lot of sense to just shove that info into the dc:relation element
> either - (again, I am not sure, just trying to work it out).
>
> As the conformance declaration refers to the metadata rather
> than the resource, perhaps it would sit better within the
> DC-AC (DCMI Administrative Metadata Working Group) area??
>
> Douglas Campbell
> National Library of New Zealand
>
|