Quoting Antoine Isaac <[log in to unmask]>:
> Documentation-wise, I'm still amazed by the conciseness of the DCAM
> document. But of course that also explains why people are at odd
> with it ;-)
> I think the main added value of working on that document should be
> on adding more context, in the form of examples but also some
> judgement on data representations (e.g, the whole "update your
> strings into fully-fledged resources when this is possible" thingy).
In terms of documentation, I would like to suggest that there can be
different documents for different audiences. I also like the CC
approach: simple documentation for most users, backed up by the formal
documentation (in this case in legal terminology) that may be needed
to resolve difficult problems or disputes. DCAM today has the formal
document but the user documentation was never written.
kc
> Note that that there is more RDF available openly to everyone, it
> shouldn't be difficult to find meaningful examples. Namely, examples
> that illustrate the concepts of DCAM, but also show what data
> expressed that way can be useful.
>
> And I trust this is not too much work, in fact...
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|