Thus spake Stu and Jon:
>
> > * DESCRIPTION
> >
> > The topic of the work, or keywords that describe the subject or
> > content of the resource, whether text-based or visual.
>
> I still prefered Subject myself; Description doesn't really convey things
> like LCSH and MeSH terms that might appear in this Element.
>
I agree with Jon on this point. It took me quite some time before I
started to see the good idea behind SUBJECT. Now my argument would be
as follows:
If we are going to use a lable for a given DC attribute, and choose
one that is already frequently used for embedding metadata, then our
usage should at least be similar to the current. Today in HTML meta,
DESCRIPTION is meant to be a paragraph of text describing what's in a
document (which, by the way, is what the lable suggests to me). Even
if we write <meta "name="DC.description" etc rather than just
description this might actually confuse some people, who don't expect
an UDC classification code. And we cannot know how x-spider operated
from the middle of nowhere extracts descriptions, can we?
SUBJECT, on the other hand, occurs but at a frequency which is two
orders of magnitude lower. Thus we are free to redefine its usage.
Sigge
PS
The figures below are metadata labels (and other things as well)
frequently encountered on the web.
Occurences lable
10540 generator
5821 keywords
3281 description
2734 author
2021 distribution
1938 resource-type
304 build
194 formatter
172 version
161 creatim
148 per
145 refresh
138 operator
70 doccomm
68 createdby
64 classification
62 keyword
46 publisher
45 publisher-email
44 identifier-url
41 courseno
41 copyright
40 studyterm
38 subject
37 coursename
25 language
18 robots
17 pics-label
16 review
16 ivan
15 cidi
13 revisit-after
13 autor
11 created
10 modified
|