On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:40:58 -0400, Wagner,Harry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Pete,
>The following statement seems problematic to me:
>
>In contrast to the case of the DCMES, the DC Terms vocabulary is regularly
>extended through the addition of new terms by the Usage Board; the DCMI Type
>Vocabulary is also occasionally extended.
>
>The words "DC Terms vocabulary" in particular. This makes it seem as though
>there is a relationship between a term's (DC) vocabulary type and the
>namespace it is defined in, which is not the case. Currently all new
>elements and element-refinements are defined in http://purl.org/terms/, but
>that does not limit their vocabulary type. audience (an element) and
>mediator (an element refinement) are good examples of this since they are
>both defined in the terms namespace.
I agree with you. I didn't think my statement ("addition of new terms")
suggested otherwise? I certainly didn't mean to!
I'm using the names "DCMES", "DC Terms Vocabulary" and "DCMI Type
Vocabulary" to refer to sets of terms (where "DCMES" = the set that conists
of "the original 15" not the superset). I guess I should have clarified what
I was referrring to with those names. For all the reasons discussed on the
other thread, I choke on calling these things "DCMI Namespaces" ;-)
So I was saying that (DCMI policy is that) terms (of any type) might be
added to the last two of that list but not to the first (because nothing got
added to that). I thought that was the case, but if it isn't then I should
have said new terms might be added to any of those three vocabularies. I
don't think that changes the thrust of the document though.
Pete
|