On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 05:20:02PM -0400, Denise Bruno wrote:
> Ahhh, so if I understand you correctly, I have two options:
>
> 1. Change the DC definition and swap record for resource, in
> which case I can no longer call the term a DC term. Instead,
> I have created a local refinement, namely, my.description.
Denise,
Swapping "record" for "resource" does not change the definition
in a way that is incompatible with the meaning of the element;
it merely refines (narrows) the semantics. And you would
not (of course) be changing the official definition on the
DCMI Web site -- just the definition used in your project
and application.
Creating a new term, on the other hand, would involve some
additional effort -- saying what it means, (ideally) assigning
it an identifier, saying how it relates to the DC term, and
(again ideally) publishing it on the Web.
> or
>
> 2. Leave the DC definitions as they are and narrow the semantics...
So #2 would seem to be the easiest route -- unless, as you
suggest, there were good practical reasons to emphasize the
narrower meaning:
> ... Ultimately, this is being done for a
> records management application; so I am leaning towards the
> first option to make it quite clear that I am talking about
> a subset of resources. ...
Instead of swapping "record" for "resource" in all of those
element definitions, it would perhaps be simpler and more
straightforward simply to define your own resource type --
"Record" -- and use it as you would use any other term of
the DCMI Type Vocabulary [1].
Tom
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883
and University Library +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen
|