Tom, the revised statement is much clearer.
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage
Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Baker
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 10:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Priority - wording of DCSV comment
All,
The final versions of the DCSV specs are due to be published as DCMI
Recommendations on 10 April (e.g., [1]). Each spec has a revision note,
the last two sentences of which, as Makx points out, are vague and
possibly misleading. I propose to replace the text:
As of 1995, the DCMI Abstract Model supports the
representation of complex structures, such as those encoded in
DCSV-syntax-based encoding schemes, as "related descriptions".
The DCMI Usage Board encourages implementers to consider the
longer-term consequences for interoperability of packaging
structured information in parsable DCSV-encoded string
values as opposed to conveying that information in related
descriptions using other syntax encodings.
With:
As of 2005, the DCMI Abstract Model supports the
representation of complex structures as "related
descriptions". The DCMI Usage Board encourages
implementers to express such structures using related
descriptions instead of packaging that information in
DCSV-encoded string values. Descriptions based on the DCMI
Abstract Model are more likely to be interoperable over
the longer term than descriptions using DCSV-syntax-based
specifications.
I would appreciate your comments or approval ASAP.
Many thanks,
Tom
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/02/13/dcmi-point/
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Director, Specifications and Documentation Dublin Core Metadata
Initiative
|