Preben Hansen wrote:
> 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.
Uh oh, widespread misunderstanding! The point behind the
Qualifiers/Object Types is that, like the elements themselves, they are
*optional*, for use only by those who need the additional level of
accuracy and 'specific-ness' they provide. They *are* an attempt at an
adaptation for a different user community, namely those engaged in
enabling resource discovery for others -- people like us (or me at
least).
Without the optional ability to qualify the elements according to some
vaguely standardised scheme, the element set cannot be sensibly mapped
to existing descriptive schemes, and is too simplistic for any serious
application...
...And unless some useful implementations start appearing soon, DC will
be overtaken by ad hoc or proprietary metadata encoding methods such as
MCF or Alta Vista's.
As for the lack of discussion on these proposals, this is certainly not
for want of trying on Jon's part!
T.
--
== Tony Gill ======================= Programme Leader: ADAM & VADS ==
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/ = http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/ ==
|