Misha,
my personal view is that provided you are using DC terms in line with
their documented semantics then it is perfectly acceptable to use the DC
acronym and namespace.
I think it would be useful for you to think about (and preferably
document!) how your syntax maps on to the DCMI Abstract Model [1] and to
feed your thoughts on syntax as they develop into the dc-architecture
working group.
I'm not sure that my view counts as an "authoritative statement" though!
Regards,
Andy.
Chair - DC Architecture Working Group
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Misha Wolf wrote:
> [Apologies for cross-posting]
>
> Hi folks,
>
> The International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) is
> interested in using DC for our new generation of standards. These
> standards will employ the News Metadata Framework, described in the
> News Metadata Framework Requirements specification, available at:
> http://www.iptc.org/dev/
>
> Our plan is to use a different syntax from any of those described on
> the DC Web site. This syntax will employ QNames in attribute values
> and is related to the work being done in the W3C towards XHTML 2.0.
>
> How do we get an authoritative statement of whether it is OK to use
> the acronym "DC" and the DC namespace if we are employing the DC
> semantics but not one of the DC-approved syntaxes?
>
> Many thanks,
> Misha Wolf
> Standards Manager, Reuters
> Chair, IPTC News Metadata Framework WG
>
>
>
>
> --------- -------------------------------------------------------
> Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
>
> To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Reuters Ltd.
>
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell
tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask]
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|