Stu
First the bouquets before the slings and arrows. Great to have this out
and it is a good clear exposition of both where we got to and some of the
thinking behind the whole enterprise.
Detailed nit picking and comments follow:
When refering to EdNA and its use of metadata, could you please link to the
URL
http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/owa/info.getpage?sp=auto&pagecode=5210
rather than the home page at http://www.edna.edu.au
Using the later makes it very hard to find the metadata information. Using
the former goes straight to the metadata page but also provides a
navigation bar which allows all the rest of EdNA to be accessed.
*** Please note that this URL is slightly different to the one I have
previously announced to meta2 and is far preferable because it provides the
navigation option. Please adjust your records accordingly.
On the role of qualifiers. I thought that the workshop came out with a
fairly clear feeling that one guideline for resolving the tension between
the minimalist and qualifier position (and I prefer to distinguish the
positions rather than dividing people into groups) was that the qualified
metadata should be of *some* use if you took out the scheme information. I
would like to see this made more explicit in the report. (Every rule has
exceptions and the Dewey example is the exception here - even your date
example is of *some* use unqualified).
I would also like to see the importance of schemes to particular
communities emphasised. Within these contexts a scheme is far more than "a
processing hint".
In relation to the pros and cons of HTML syntax options (and I declare my
allegiance to the minority 'overloaded content' camp) I believe the
statement "the behavior of editing software is undefined and potentially
problematic" is too vague and weak. I would prefer to say "the 'scheme'
element can be lost when using some simple but widely used HTML editing
tools."
I would appreciate clarification of the proposed "Canberra Qualifiers HTML
Syntax - Recommended syntax for encoding qualified Dublin Core metadata".
What is the thrust of this proposed document? I understood that the
workshop decided we should explain the format and pros and cons of the two
syntaxes but not recommend one over the other. Is this still the case?
Also, in calling it the "Canberra Qualifiers HTML Syntax" this seems to
imply some linkage to particular semantics.
"BOF" is a bit of jargon which should be spelt out the first time it is used.
Best wishes
Jack Gilding
At 04:04 PM 10/6/97 -0400, you wrote:
>The penultimate version of the workshop report is on my web site; I'll
>be accepting edits and suggestions until a bit before COB tomorrow
>(wednesday) and then it will go to DLib for copy editing.
>
>
>have at it
>
>thanks,
>stu
>
>http://www.oclc.org:5046/~weibel/dc4.html
>
>
>
>
>
end =============================================================
Jack Gilding ph: (03)9628-4652
Project Manager, VET EdNA Project fax: (03)9628-2472
Communications & Multimedia Unit [log in to unmask]
OTFE, PO Box 266D Melbourne VIC 3001 http://www.edna.edu.au/vetwp/
(level 4 Rialto Sth Tower 525 Collins Street Melbourne Australia)
|