| On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Terry Allen wrote:
| > What I find in
| >
| > http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifla/documents/libraries/cataloging/metadata/dublin2.htm,
| Sorry, I got a "Not found" for that document. Could you repost the URL
| please?
It's where I happened to find
http://www.uic.edu/~cmsmcq/tech/metadata.syntax.html,
"A Syntax for Dublin Core Metadata: Recommendations from the
Second Metadata Workshop," by Lou Burnard et al.
One last message on this thread and then I'll shut up:
| I strongly disagree with this. It does not make it difficult to extract
| information about the author at all; if anything it makes it easier
| because the default is just a name (which is what, if I understand you
| correctly, is what you want) but the qualifiers also allow software to
| determine whether the information is other details about the author (I'd
| expect those to be _much_ rarer than names but I think we've got to
| provide for them). If there are unrecognised/unregistered qualifiers the
| software is completely free to ignore them (and maybe the entire element
| as well). I don't consider this to be underpowered at all. We're not
| aiming to recreate USMARC or TEI headers after all.
Current HTML user agents do not use the special syntax invented
to expand Author; you are requiring everyone writing a metadata-using
user agent to build in handling for that special syntax.
| > I grant that you can reserve TYPE=name for the case now covered
| > by Author, but you still don't have a way to associate miscellaneous
| > author information with the author's name, a problem neither you
| > nor Jon answered. Yet if you add a pointer as a qualifier on
| > Author, you get precisely the association you need. That shows
| > that the tag abuse is deleterious.
|
| A pointer to what?
To some other format of recording personal contact info. There are
plenty of proposals for such in connection with the Internet; no need
to invent another.
| The original 13 elements are what we've still currently got (modolo some
| potential renaming and maybe the odd addition from the Image guys?) but I
| didn't read the original DC report
| (<URL:http://www.oclc.org:5047/oclc/research/conferences/metadata/dublin_core_report.html>)
| as saying these were the definitive list of qualifiers (especially seeing
| as people have already pointed out problems with them). However, maybe we
| should name the versions as:
|
| v0.0 : Abstract only DC from the original Dublin Meeting
|
| v0.1 : Concrete representation stemming from Warwick, including
| the use of HTML META elements to embed it in documents
The original DC was described as 0.1, and I've been using that label
for a year and a half.
I'll watch for your solution to the problem of associating author metadata
with the right authors when there are multiple authors.
Regards,
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. [log in to unmask]
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
|