> From [log in to unmask] Sat Nov 30 14:05 PST 1996
> Ah, I never even noticed "sole" in there. I must admit that it never
> occured to me that just because we have an element called Identifier which
> we use for identifying the resource that it would imply that we couldn't
> have identifiers for relationships or whatever in other elements.
Of course "Identifier" is a legal name, but I wouldn't design metadata
this way. Leaving the name as Identifier for now, imagine the provider
at the controls of a metadata-aware record input form:
ELEMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Author: _________________ names go here, family name first
Identifier: _____________ identifiers go here (for the resource)
Relation: _______________ identifiers go here too (a related resource)
Description: ____________ identifiers or words go here
...
The problem is that the element name/label "Identifier" conveys nothing
that uniquely distinguishes its content from that of the other elements.
> > Similarly, a central tenet of the Warwick Framework would have to be
> > dropped, since the WF calls for referencing (via URIs) a variety of
> > objects from a variety of elements.
The WF linkage metadata element for linking from within a record out to
external content is what was referring to, however, looking at it again,
I withdraw this argument as I'm no longer sure I fully understand how
generally it applies.
-John
|