On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Nancy Brodie wrote:
> Pete Johnston said:
> "I'd even suggest we should embrace the notion that it
> is perfectly OK for DCMI to create properties in the DCMI
> metadata vocabularies ("DCMI Namespaces") without specifying
> any direct relationship between those properties and one of
> the original 15 elements"
>
> I find this possibility confusing? Scary?
Not all properties for which a compelling need arises will
necessarily be semantic refinements of the original fifteen
elements.
That said, Dublin Core has always been distinguished by its
focus on a _small_ set of _core_ elements, and the current
Usage Board is strongly motivated to maintain this focus.
> I just had a question from a client setting up a database for
> DC metadata: what are the valid qualifiers for dc.publisher?
>
> I went to www.dublincore.org and
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ Because the
> terms are listed independent of the elements they refine and
> not in any obvious order, it was difficult to determine if
> there were any refinements for publisher. I had to go to
> the Usage Guide to determine that there were none.
This is a issue of documentation we could perhaps do something
about. At present, each term defined in the DCMI terms
document [1] points to other, related terms, but there is
no table in that document to provide an overview. For that,
as you point out, one needs to consult the Usage Guide [2].
Would it be enough to point to [2] from [1]; should we
incorporate the contents of [2] into the introduction of
[1]; or are there other ways we might structure [1] to be
more helpful for users? Suggestions welcome.
Tom
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/qualifiers.shtml
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: [log in to unmask]
|