Hi Andrew,
> I have some concerns about the Library proposals which I will
> summarise
> for you:
> 1. 'captured' - in my view there is a severe conceptual problem with
> this proposal tied up with the 'one to one' rule
Could you say a it more about what you see as the problem here? (Or
point me at something if you already have, and I missed it! :-))
I don't really see a "one-to-one" problem, but I do rather think the
notion of "capture" needs to be clarified a good deal.
> 2. 'version' - I think this is completely misplaced, in my view, as a
> sub-property of 'description'. I don't agree at all that it can be
> viewed as a narrowing of the semantics of the 'description'
> property, in
> fact if we accept this term it would be best as a completely new
> property, not tied to an existing property - although I
> acknowledge that
> there could be arguments made for 'version' as a sub-property of
> 'title'.
I found this one problematic too. I agree with you that it doesn't meet
the requirements to be a subprop of dc:description, though as Tom points
out it doesn't have to be a subprop of anything. I was also a bit unsure
whether it was mixing two different notions: a "label"-like value (which
is what is suggested by the examples, "2nd edition" etc), and a
"statement"-like value, hinted at in the comment (but for which I don't
see any examples so I'm not sure whether they intend something different
by that or not). I think it should be one or the other, but not both.
Pete
|