Are we really that concerned with whether or not the "value" of dc:title is
exactly the same as it is for another method of encoding dc:title? It seems
to me that is is enough to know what dc:title signifies, and the specific
resource it applies to.
> On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 00:31, Andy Powell wrote:
> > Also, I must admit that it is not clear to me whether a
> book (for example)
> > that has a title in English that is then transalted into
> French is 'a book
> > with two titles' or 'a book with one title that has been
> translated into
> > different languages'.
>
> Of course there is a difference. This must depend on the situation, as
> both methods (repeating dc:title or rdf:value) are allowed.
>
> Leaving titles aside, I think that dc:description is simpler
> to handle:
> If the descriptions *mean* the same thing, they might be best together
> as in c). Then you can have several descriptions (and an abstract,
> maybe) that have nothing in common, and they are necessarily separate.
>
> In my case, LOM specifies that the titles *are* semantically
> equivalent,
> so this case is clear (I think).
>
> /Mikael
> --
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
>
|