On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:35:01PM +1100, Flack, Irvin wrote:
> And if I'm new to DC, I could be thinking at this stage, well, why did
> dc make one a literal and not the other? I see the answer is what you
> just said and it's explained well in the Appendix under RDF Property
> Semantics, but as someone else said, maybe they won't get that far.
>
> So would this be a correct way to put it?
>
> 'dcterms:language has a non-literal range to accommodate the choice of
> URI or value string.
That's exactly right, and a nice way to put it.
> Re DCAM ... and Karen's wishing it dead. ;-) I think some sort of common
> model is essential for interoperability between metadata standards and
> DCAM is general enough and flexible enough to do that. I've found it
> hard going and at first couldn't see why it was needed. But I can now
> really see the value in it and I definitely think it's worth persisting
> in your efforts to explain and reach out with documents like this.
Thank you, Irvin. It's very clear that the explanation and
rationale for the DCAM approach need to be better articulated,
so suggestions like the above are very helpful.
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
|