Hi Prue!
While it's true that much of the development regarding Dublin Core has
been in the direction of machine-processability and semantics over the
last couple of years, that is not an indication that simpler
"non-semantic" approaches like yours are no longer used, useful or
welcome!
In fact, the Architecture forum recently produced a draft document
trying to highlight the different "interoperability levels" one might
want to focus on when developing a metadata application, and your
example sounds to me like it would fall within what is called level 1.
http://dublincore.org/documents/interoperability-levels/
On that level, there is no need to care about RDF, or even about the
DCAM.
Only at a time when requirements from your community tells you so, you
should feel you must look at the next levels.
So, I believe there are many communities that want to use Dublin Core on
level 1. That's fine, reasonable and if it works for you, noone will
criticize you for that.
On the other hand, many of the other developments, such as Description
Set Profiles and semantic interoperability *do* require more complex
technical infrastructures, that come with a certain price in development
efforts.
It should be a choice whether to aim for that, though. And I hope you
can feel you still have that choice.
/Mikael
ons 2008-12-03 klockan 10:54 +1100 skrev Prue Deacon:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have followed the discussion on the DCAP Guidelines with some interest
> but also with a sense of detachment because the direction Dublin Core has
> taken left me behind long ago. (For those who do not know me, I manage the
> metadata standards and workflow for HealthInsite, a gateway to health
> information for Australians.)
>
> I welcomed the original Dublin Core because of the simple framework and the
> straightforward DC dot notation for embedded metadata in HTML pages. As
> well as being machine-readable (our system has no trouble harvesting DC
> dot), it was also concise and human-readable. This made it easy for me to
> explain the coding to people in our partner organisations - the people who
> create and update metadata records for us range from highly experienced
> cataloguers down to administration officers - simplicity is vital. The
> simple framework was also important to me because it meant I could
> concentrate my efforts on our two most important attributes: subject and
> date.modified.
>
> Dublin Core has become far more complex with the move towards more
> semantically-correct coding and RDF. I can see that this might be useful
> for some communities within Dublin Core but for me it is horrible. I do not
> understand much of the documentation (eg the DCMI Abstract Model) and I do
> not have time to undertake the study required to interpret it. The changes
> in terminology (eg element, description) are particularly confusing. The
> DCAP document is more readable but I do not think I will need to create a
> HealthInsite application profile because we follow AGLS.
>
> My focus is on metadata content - making sure that it is accurate and that
> it is updated to match updates in the resources that we link to. This is
> where I worry a lot about Dublin Core. There seems to be an assumption
> that, when the technical coding framework is in place, then everyone will
> create/maintain accurate, consistent metadata content and (hey presto!) the
> Semantic Web will connect everybody to everything and will always be
> up-to-date. Accuracy and consistency requires intensive ongoing quality
> control which is expensive. Without quality control, poor quality metadata
> can hinder searching - this was the experience with the whole-of-government
> search engine for the Australian government sector.
>
> As you can see, I am a Semantic Web sceptic. For the time being,
> HealthInsite will continue as a legacy DC implementation. To upgrade would
> be expensive both for us and our partner organisations, with no clear
> benefit to support a business case for funding.
>
> I would be interested to know if there are other sites using legacy
> implementations of DC.
>
> Regards, Prue
>
> Prue Deacon
> Metadata Manager, HealthInsite Editorial Team
> Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
> [log in to unmask]
> phone: 61 2 6289 7505
> http://www.healthinsite.gov.au
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> "Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error please notify the author immediately and delete all copies of this transmission."
>
--
<[log in to unmask]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|