why can't we say 'the content of the resource'?
A
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage
Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Andy Powell
Sent: 05 September 2005 16:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Something to look at re: Coverage
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Andy Powell wrote:
>> Also, if coverage includes jurisdiction ("spatial applicability", if you
>> like), then presumably it includes "temporal applicability"
>
> No, I don't think so.
Actually, I think this brings us right back to the start of this
discussion. I originally proposed a re-definition of coverage as
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource or the jurisdiction under
which the resource is relevant.
which would clearly flag coverage as being different from, say,
dcterms:valid because spatial and temporal are explicitly to do with
'aboutness'.
Diane wanted to water down the 'aboutness' bit of this, with something
like
The spatial or temporal scope of the resource or the jurisdiction under
which the resource is relevant.
which would, to my mind, open up the possibility of overlaps with
dcterms:valid.
dc:coverage -> temporal scope -> temporal validity -> dcterms:valid
So, I agree with Pete that there are possible overlaps with dc:date *but*
only if we are forced to go with Diane's use of 'scope' rather than my use
of 'topic'! :-)
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/
|