Quoting "Diane I. Hillmann" <[log in to unmask]>:
> I think you're right on this. I've noted that some people setting up
> APs have a tendency to change the wording in definitions from
> "resource" to "something-else-that-they're-interested-in" which has
> the effect of restricting the definition. I've tried to convince the
> ones I've worked with to leave the defs as is and add a comment that
> accomplishes essentially the same thing.
I think it's fine for a DCAP to include a literal where "resource" is
replaced by "something-else-that-they're-interested-in". The fact that
it looks like what DCMI calls a "definition" rather than a "comment"
doesn't matter: it is still just an application-specific
comment/annotation, and doesn't change the "global" DCMI-provided
definition.
Pete
-------
Pete Johnston
Research Officer (Interoperability)
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
|