On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Pete Johnston wrote:
> > Using dspace:provenance is attractive because it saves us
> > from proposing a new term. However I'm not sure what the
> > status is of terms in the 'dspace' namespace. I doubt if they
> > are standards in any formal way - so wouldn't gain us much
> > over using rslpcd namespace terms. (Assuming the object of
> > this exercise is to get a more formal standards status for
> > the collection description terms.)
>
> Agreed. Let's forget about using dspace:provenance then.
It doesn't rule out the possibility that DSpace will adopt whatever we
propose instead :-). My guess is that they will be more than happy to
move towards more 'standard' usage - provided we come up with something
that meets their need.
I mentioned the work of this group to MacKenzie Smith (DSpace/MIT) when
she visited Bath a while back and I think she was quite interested in it,
but I'll email her again as a reminder.
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell/ +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|