[For the meta2 folks: I started to add some DC elements into some of our
ROADS HTML documentation and found that I had to kludge things a bit in
order to generate valid HTML 2.0 (which I'm a bit anal about). I sent out
a message detailing what I done to some of the UK metadata folks and
also CCed to Stu. This is Stu's response to my original message (included
at the end). I'll respond to it in another email.
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Stu Weibel wrote:
> Jon,
>
> Delighted to see your note, and your concern is right on the mark. I'm
> uncertain as to the best way to go with this... and I'd be happy to see
> an open discussion about it.
>
> Here's my firts pass analysis (by no means exhaustive)... coments welcome.
>
> BTW, I'd like to see this discussion on the META2 list... want to repost this?
>
> stu
>
> Possible SCEME schemes:
>
> I. Discourage use of schemes for the time being
>
> Rationale: One step at a time... if we promote a simple, straightforward means
> of embedding metadata in HTML, then the likelihood of adoption goes up.
>
> A. PROS: 1. simple to understand
> 2. simple to parse
> 3. we have consensus now
>
> B. CONS: 1. No means for specification of scheme, hence less coherence of data and lower
> likelihood for machine-parsable data
>
>
> II. Dot.kludge approach:
>
> <META NAME="DC.author.SCHEME.e-mail" CONTENT="[log in to unmask]">
>
> Rationale: keep HTML pure
>
> A. PROS: 1. Keeps HTML pure
> 2. allows unambiguous specification of scheme
>
> B. CONS: 1. harder to parse automatically
> 2. SCHEMEs of any flavor will be hard to explain, and will thereby
> impede adoption
>
> III. Slip-in-a-SCHEME Kludge:
>
> <META NAME="DC.author SCHEME=e-mail CONTENT="[log in to unmask]">
>
> Rationale: It may not be strictly kosher HTML, but it won't really hurt,
> and it allows a cleaner implementation of SCHEME
>
> A. PROS: 1. easy to ignore SCHEME specifications for brain-dead robots
> 2. keeps SCHEME separate from NAMEd element types
>
> B. CONS: 1. OK, OK... its broken HTML
> 2. No common consensus
> 3. SCHEMEs of any flavor will be hard to explain, and will thereby
> impede adoption
> 4. may require counselling for HTML hardliners ;-)
>
>
> ----- Begin Included Message -----
>
> >From [log in to unmask] Mon Aug 5 15:58:06 1996
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 20:57:58 (BST)
> From: Jon Knight <[log in to unmask]>
> X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
> To: Lorcan Dempsey <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: core
> In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Sender: Jon Knight <[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Lorcan Dempsey wrote:
> > Check out the following page enhanced with embedded Dublin Core metadata
> > and 'core' icon:
>
> Tony spurred me on to put some DC metadata in the ROADS Software page
> (<URL:http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/>). However I hit a bit of problem. As
> many of you know, I'm a bit anal about valid HTML so I wanted to make
> sure that the HTML is valid to the strict HTML 2.0 DTD (I know Wilbur is
> on the way but I'm waiting for the dust to settle before moving to
> that). Like Tony I followed the recommendations in the "Embedding
> Metadata in HTML 2.0"
> (<URL:http://www.oclc.org:5046/~weibel/html-meta.html>) which say to use
> name attributes comprising of the metadata schema and the metadata
> identifier separated by a full stop (eg: DC.author). This is fine - the
> problem is putting in the DC "scheme" and "type" information. The
> referenced document is strangely quiet about this and I hadn't noticed it
> until now. However Tony's solution of having SCHEME and TYPE attributes
> in the META element won't work for me as they break the DTD (and I'm
> anal remember... :-) )
>
> So what to do? As a temporary measure I've added the scheme information
> to the NAME attribute so that you get things like:
>
> <META NAME="DC.author.SCHEME.e-mail" CONTENT="[log in to unmask]">
>
> I wanted to use something other than full stops to separate out the
> SCHEME/TYPE from the rest Schema.Indentifier pair but unfortunately the
> HTML 2.0 DTD defines the NAME attribute as type "NAME" rather than
> "CDATA" (which is what the CONTENT attribute is) and so its limited to
> alphanumerics, periods and hyphens, with a maximum length of 72
> characters.
>
> Does my temporary solution seem reasonable? Should I write something up
> on it? Can anyone see a better way of putting in the SCHEME and TYPE
> information of DC?
>
> Tatty bye,
>
> Jim'll
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
> Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU.
> * I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
>
>
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
>
Tatty bye,
Jim'll
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
|