Tom, responding to Pete and Andy:
>
>I agree that the Abstract Model should be at the center of
>explanations, and I like most of the text. I also think we
>need to revisit the explanation for "simple" versus "qualified"
>Dublin Core.
I agree that the Abstract Model should be better integrated into the
text, and have said more than once that I'd like to find a way to
integrate the AM better into "Using Dublin Core," but could use some
help with that. Because I used text from "Using Dublin Core" as the
basis for what I added to the article, it suffers from some of the
same problems.
>Two issues however:
>
>1) To start with statements, property-value pairs, and URIs is
> to jump in at the deep end. The notion of "core metadata
> properties" has been and should continue to be a key part
> of the message. Introducing "the Dublin Core" up-front also
> helps explain the funny name.
>
Yes, in my experience, the DCAM certainly is the deep end for most
people. I think it makes more sense to use Wikipedia to provide a
"soft" approach, dealing first with things people might have already
heard about DC, and making that clearer before getting into deeper
water.
> > The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI), the body that facilitates
> > the community development of the DC metadata standard, provides a core
> > set of about 80 properties,
>
> I suspect that the notion of "core metadata properties" really
> is easier for most people to grasp than the notion of an
> abstract model. I would not want DCMI to lose that focus --
> 80 properties is no longer really a "core".
Agreed. Despite our mere 10 years of "legacy," we are seen by many in
an increasingly complex world as more approachable and
understandable--metadata for the masses, perhaps. We can't afford to
lose that advantage.
>2) "DC" and "DCMI"
>
> > The features of the DC metadata standard are fully described
> > in the Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM).
Usage aside, I think the sentence above denies the fact that the
explanation provided in the DCAM, while certainly full, is fairly
technical from the point of view of the metadata novice.
> This is not quite how I understand our current use of
> "DC" and "DCMI". To take two important examples, we
> currently have the "DCMI Abstract Model" and we talk
> about "Dublin Core Application Profiles" (but not "DC
> Application Profiles" or "DCMI Application Profiles").
> In a reasonably consistent way, we currently:
>
> -- use "Dublin Core" instead of "DC". The exception is when
> we use the names of Jiscmail lists as handles for working
> groups (e.g., "DC-Architecture"). In DCMI publications,
> we have I think avoided using the free-standing acronym
> "DC" to mean just "Dublin Core" for quite a long time.
> If we were to revive it, would we do so with the intent
> to refer to "the Dublin Core" (DC-15) or to designate
> the abstract model?
>
> -- use "DCMI" for things that are managed or maintained by
> DCMI as an organization -- e.g., "DCMI Usage Board".
> The DCMI Abstract Model is a model put forward and
> maintained by DCMI for metadata that uses DCMI terms,
> (whereas a Dublin Core Application Profile is in most
> cases not put forward or maintained by DCMI).
>
I *think* I followed most of this pattern, but may have blundered a bit ... ;-)
Diane
|