On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Daniel LaLiberte wrote:
> Here is a different perspective: from high enough above this
> element-name-hell, the names of elements are irrelevant. We (someone)
> will need to provide mappings between different schemas anyway, and as
> long as the schemas are well defined enough to support the mappings,
> it doesnt matter what things are called.
Good point; I think we should all just take the last set of DC element
names that Stu posted and just run with them (and _not_ change them
again for _at_least_ a year! :-)).
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. *
|