Lou Burnard wrote:
> | * DESCRIPTION
> "Description" is sooo vague!
One of the reasons we're all having to endure these endless debates about
the element names (Stu's element-name-hell -- I sympathise!) is that the
original set were tooo specific and therefore not flexible enough.
> For my money, the "description" of a book
And this text-centric view is another reason why the original element
names are now undergoing review.
> I suggest "Keywords" since that makes explicit the probable
> content of the field.
I object strongly to the notion of changing 'Description' to 'Keywords'
-- I also reject the assumption that keywords will be the probable
content of the field. We've already used the current 'Subject' label with
(Type=Description) qualifiers in our new web pages. Would you advocate
putting a verbose description or abstract of a resource in an element
called 'Keywords'? 'Keywords(Type=Abstract)' makes no sense at all.
> | * RIGHTS MANAGEMENT [need a snappy, single word element name here]
> For a snappier name, I suggest AVAILABILITY.
This is confusing; a networked resource that was protected by copyright
might still be available for downloading or viewing. People would use
it incorrectly, e.g. Availability = Tuesdays & Thursdays after 3pm.
> Right, that's my tuppenuth. Now to see whether anyone agrees with me.
Well this is 4p from me as I already put 2p in the other day!
T.
--
== Tony Gill ================================= ADAM Project Leader ==
Surrey Institute of Art & Design * Farnham * Surrey * GU9 7DS * UK
Tel: +44 (0)1252 722441 x2427 * Fax: +44 (0)1252 712925
== [log in to unmask] ============================= http://adam.ac.uk ==
|