Tom:
A definite improvement.
Diane
>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
|