On tis, 2007-02-06 at 14:17 +1030, Jon Mason wrote:
> 1. On first reading it presents very well & looks to be better
> structured. But it *is* abstract! ...and is challenging to clearly
> comprehend. I really think some concrete examples throughout would be
> of general benefit to readers.
It is abstract... I do think we should keep it that way, but a "primer"
is certainly in place I think. DCMI wants to provide documentation on
creating a vocabulary, etc, and basic "primer"-level description of the
DCAM might be an important part of that, maybe?
I also want to take this opportunity to apologise to the DC community -
DCMI has gone very far on an abstract branch in the process of trying to
clean up the fundamentals of DC metadata. It's not easy to grasp (not
even for the authors!) exactly what we are doing and why we are doing
it.
So, while it might seem like we know exactly what we are doing, we're
actually struggling hard to find the right path in a very difficult
domain, balancing "user-friendlyness" (whatever that actually means)
with correctness and "machine-processability" (whatever that actually
means).
I guess my point is this: all questions are reasonable, and no answers
are definitive... all comments welcome!
/Mikael
|