I hadn't posted my remarks on URN development wrt DC to the list, but will
now.
I agree with Stu that the IETF is the right place to discuss transport syntax
for DC formats, although I was puzzled that the WF seems to be an attempt
to invent a new and unnecessary transport syntax (why not use multipart/related?).
Ron said:
>I think that we could work on a MIME encoding of the WF in the IETF
in something like a URC-WG. In fact, that is exactly what I would like
to do, but I wanted to get some code written and a draft started before
pushing on it. As part of that effort we could do a couple of related
things, like register Internet Media Types for MARC and the Dublin Core.
which I agree with, if you read "DC" for "WF." (That is, I agree with
what Ron said if he'd said something different ...)
My only concern is that URN development seems (at last!)
to be getting somewhere, and in view of past discussions of URNs and URCs,
I suspect that we risk confusion by bringing up URCs again before the
URN work is somewhat more solid. I wouldn't want URN development to
get sucked into discussions of "the metadata rathole," and I badly want
URNs.
Regards,
--
Terry Allen O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. [log in to unmask]
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find ourselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group sponsor http://www.ora.com/davenport/
|