First of all, I think the punishment for starting a thread and then
getting on a plane for vactation ought to be a committee assignment or
something worse (gee... is there anything worse?).
> The main contenders at the moment I see as
>
> 1. Leave the definition as is.
> 2. Expand a little.
> 3. Don't define at all, (aptly named "Date pristine") and assume the
> date element is the date (singular), what ever that is, of the
> resource being described.
>
> Anyone else from the group please feel free to comment or add to
> what I have written here while I'm away.
The definition as it is is inadequate. Even the Prince of Vagueness
(that's me, folks) can't argue that it is enough. Scratch #1
Scratch #3 for the same reason.
I believe that careful, minimal expansion of the date is in order. I
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
...?
To those who churlishly point out that this is, in truth, an expansion of the
number of elements, I say... yeah? what's your point?
stu
|