At 08.22 -0500 97-01-28, Stu Weibel wrote:
>Rebecca writes:
>
>
>> I personally don't feel like there's been enough discussion about
>> qualifiers to officially bless these. I think there are too many
>> qualifiers in the qualifiers documents, potentially resulting in very
>> complex records.
>
>I agree with Rebecca. I'm in favor of experimenting with things,
>and I can imagine that in the future we might well have rather
>complex version of DC records, but to make this path the main road
>is, in my view, a mistake, and a distraction from one of the main
>design goals: a SIMPLE resource description record.
>
>Let's move cautiously here, and let the needs of the applications
>drive the direction. To me, that means simple first and formost,
>with an eye towards flexibility to allow elaboration as necessary
>
>stu
I agree with Stuart and Rebecca,
At this stage it is important to make a general and simple level of
resource description record. It should also be easy to understand and use!
This general version could then be altered, developed and adapted for
different user communities and environments. Different communities will
have different needs for description, and a future software should allow
those different needs, through future additions and extensions.
Preben Hansen
SICS (Swedish Institute of Computer Science)
http://www.sics.se/
Participant in "Nordic Metadata Project"
|