my assumption is, as john suggests, that any date-like-thing should be
encoded according to the 8601 profile.
stu
----- Begin Included Message -----
>From [log in to unmask] Mon Jul 21 12:18:27 1997
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John A. Kunze" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DC date element
Sender: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:01:51 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask] (Stu Weibel)
> ...
> would like to see a small number of clear date categories agreed upon and
> specified in the reference definition.
>
> DC.date.copyright
> DC.date.lastModified
> DC.date.creation
Relating this back to Misha's work on the 8601 profile (which I think
is terrific, btw), has anyone noticed that the profile looks more like
the specification of a "data type" than of "data semantics"?
It's clear to me that the profile will apply to any number of elements
that contain date-like things (DLTs ;-) ). Whether we define
DC.date.copyright
DC.date.lastModified
DC.date.creation
as sub-elements, as separate elements, or as future extensions,
would anyone suggest that they _not_ share this data type profile?
-John
----- End Included Message -----
|