On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Ron Daniel wrote:
> Editorial Comments -
> You might add a short narrative to each of the options explaining their
> key features, then give the example. The discussion of good and bad
> points is useful.
>
> You need to add some material at the top on just what "schemes" and
> "types" are, and why we should try to accomodate them.
Good idea. Assuming the hassles of getting NT 4 working on my nice new
computer don't drive me screaming to the nearest whisky dispensary, I'll
attack it tomorrow in a Web version of my message, plus the feedback that
comes in from the other side of the planet overnight...
> >Example:
> >
> > <META NAME = "DC.date"
> > TYPE = "creation"
> > SCHEME = "ISO31"
> > CONTENT = "1996-06-17">
> > <LINK REL = SCHEMA.dc HREF =
> > "http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core_elements#date">
> > <LINK REL = SCHEMA.iso31 REFERENCE =
> > "ISO 31-1:1992 Quantities & units -- Part 1: space & time">
> >
> Can you change this example to remove the #date from the SCHEMA.DC <LINK>?
Not sure about the wisdom of that... the whole point of the link was to
allow the viewer to see what DC.date was about, rather than DC.*...
Still, I'm open to convincing...
> >Don't use SCHEMEs at all for now
> >
> [...]
> >Cons: Less coherence in descriptions
> > Difficulty for user in interpreting metadata
> > Less likelihood of data being machine-parsable
> > Impossible (or extremely difficult) to include the important meta-metadata
>
> An additional "con" is that it doesn't meet needs of systems currently
> under development, such as ROADS.
Indeed. Taken on board.
> ><META NAME="DC.author SCHEME=e-mail CONTENT="[log in to unmask]">
>
> I'm not clear on how this proposal differs from Option 1. The LINK
> element is not shown, but I thought that was part of Eric's work.
Layout, as much as anything else. As well as designing for search engines
(where this option looks fairly similar to Option 1), we also need to
remember those READING the metadata. In these cases, the two options are
vastly different. Indeed, to most of my potential users they probably
wouldn't even be recognised as saying the same thing...
> Also, you are missing a closing " after DC.author, unless this proposal
Oops.
> >Example:
> >
> ><META NAME="DC.author(e-mail)" CONTENT="[log in to unmask]">
> >
> >Documented at: http://purl.oclc.org/net/eric/publications/metadata/minimal.html
> >
> >Discussion: the syntax suggested at Warwick, I believe...
> >
> >Pros: HTML compliant
> >
> >Cons: Difficult for user to interpret?
>
> This option also uses ':' as the delimiter for type information, which
> should be mentioned. One of the standard objections to such an approach is
> the potential for conflict when the field name contains one of the reserved
> characters, so that should be added to the cons list.
Yup... sorry. All this rain must be reaching my brain...
Paul
/======================================================================\
| Paul Miller |
| Graphics & GIS Advisor, University Computing Service |
| University of Newcastle, Claremont Tower, Claremont Road, Newcastle |
| upon Tyne NE1 7RU. tel (0191) 222 8212/8039, fax (0191) 222 8765 |
| |
| e-mail [log in to unmask] WWW http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~napm1/ |
| [log in to unmask] http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~ngraphic/ |
\======================================================================/
|