Re Roy's most recent list.
I am about to depart for 3 weeks in Brazil - so I will be off line for
a while - so a parting comment.
I can happily live with most of Roy's summary. I do have a couple
of problems though with the Data subcategory, and with the term
Environment.
Under Data, Ithink we have neglected the whole area of "Structured
Text" - i.e. textual output/reports from a database. So I would like
to suggest adding
"Structured-Text"
I am not sure that Bibliographic is not contents rather than type -
it could be "Structured Text"
Environment - ENvironment is where we live. Environment looks odd
to us "Environmental-type" (I work in a Department of the Environment,
and I assure you it has very little to do with Games, Chat, perhaps -
Virtual Reality sometimes).
I suggest another term "Interactive"? - although other things can also
be interactive. Perhaps the group can come up with a better word.
Ciao for now - happy discussions
Arthur
Environment Australia
>
>The recent discussion on DC Resource Types has been *very* interesting
to
>me, and also instructive on how difficult it is to slouch toward
>consensus. Therefore I have become of two minds, along the lines that
you
>have experienced already. That is, I have now divided my original
>proposal into two:
>
>1) The Minimalist Draft - here I came down firmly on the side of
>simplicity as well as individual extensibility. Only the top level is
>defined. Everything else is left either to the individual or to an
>existing controlled vocabulary that is appropriate for the items being
>described (I then suggest a "Scheme" attribute to specify the
vocabulary)
>
>2) The Structuralist Draft - here I continued along the vein of defining
>up to three levels, but I revised it a bit based on comments here on the
>list. I must apologize for not having time to thoroughly digest
>everyone's contribution, but I promise to spend more time doing so when
I
>return from four days in Victoria, BC on Tuesday. This draft benefited
>most from the contributions of Terry Kuny and Arthur Chapman, although
>comments from others also helped (keep them coming...).
>
>You will notice that I deleted the top-level category of "Miscellaneous"
>which did indeed seem poor as Terry Kuny observed. I also added a
>top-level category "Environment" to attempt to get at what is really
>different about virtual reality words, games, and chat rooms. I'm sure
>you'll tell me if I'm off the deep end on this. Another somewhat major
>change is replacing "Document" with "Text". I am convinced that given
the
>top levels we are discussing Text makes much more sense than Document.
>But, as always, I am open to persuasion.
>
>In looking at the various types we are trying to define I tried to
>consider only the type and not the content. Therefore I deleted such
>terms as "biography" as having to do with content rather than a
definable
>document type.
>
>Everything is available, as before, at:
>
>http://sunsite.Berkeley.EDU/Metadata/types.html
>
>Knock yourselves out and then come and knock me out (virtually, of
>course!). Thanks for all the thoughtful and thought-provoking input.
>Roy Tennant
>
|