On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Andy Powell wrote:
> It seems to me that we now have two opposing views on the use of SCHEME
> and TYPE for sub-elements, as described in
>
> http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~napm1/ads/dublin.html#scheme
>
> and
>
> http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/Metadata/DC-SubElements.html
>
> It'd be nice to all be doing things the same way :-) ... and I'd really
> like to get on and add some DC to the UKOLN pages?
It would be nice to have a one-and-only-one standard for these. I based
our DC sub-elements document on a combination of the original DC report, the
SGML implementation of DC from Warwick, Paul's document, various
postings from meta2 and comments from readers. In most of these, scheme
was the basic sub-element and type only appeared in a few of these. If
others on meta2 prefer Paul's idea of using scheme only to point to names
of existing coding schemes and type otherwise then I'm happy to go
along. If I don't hear any objections in the next few days I'll make the
change to my document (glad I stuck draft all over it!).
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. *
|