Rachel Heery wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Misha Wolf wrote:
>
> > Hence, I stay with:
> >
> > <meta name="DC.contributor.name" content="Chris Smith">
> > <meta name="DC.contributor.role" content="Illustrator">
> > <meta name="DC.contributor.affiliation" content="United Illustrators">
> >
> > or:
> >
> > <contributor>
> > <name>Chris Smith</name>
> > <role>Illustrator</role>
> > <affiliation>United Illustrators</affiliation>
> > </contributor>
> >
> > The other approach proposed just doesn't scale. It was:
> >
> > <meta name="DC.contributor.illustrator" content="Chris Smith">
>
> I can't help but feel that your preferred solutions are just shoving the
> problem to the right hand side.... its a syntax solution
No, it is not a syntax solution. It changes values such as "illustrator",
"choreographer" or "producer" from being *sub-elements* to being *data*.
> it doesn't solve
> the real problem which is that proliferation of qualifiers works against
> interoperability (however they are expressed).
I'm uncomfortable with your use of the word "qualifiers". At DC4, we used
this word to mean one of:
1. language
2. scheme
3. type (sub-element name)
See http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.html for the DC4
report.
In my proposal, "choreographer" moves from being a qualifier to being a
member of a vocabulary, just like "Ming Dynasty" in:
<meta name="DC.coverage.periodName" scheme="historic" content="Ming Dynasty">
> I think qualifiers will
> only work where they are agreed between user communities, where that
> community fixes on an enumerated list which can be communicated to
> metadata creators, software provider and searchers. Otherwise the
> qualifiers can't be used in the search process
Indeed, it is generally helpful if a group of people agree on a
vocabulary. We will, of course, have hundreds of vocalularies, adopted by
various groups for specialised uses. Some vocabularies will emerge as
having more general use.
> Oh, and isn't there the issue of how search engines would deal with
> grouped, repeatable elements ... but I think that's another thread,
> something for DC5 maybe?
That's where RDF comes in, I hope! HTML's META element syntax doesn't
support grouped, repeatable elements. We'll be given lots of info on RDF
at DC5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misha Wolf Email: [log in to unmask] 85 Fleet Street
Standards Manager Voice: +44 171 542 6722 London EC4P 4AJ
Reuters Limited Fax : +44 171 542 8314 UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth DC Metadata Workshop, 6-8 Oct 1997, linnea.helsinki.fi/meta/DC5.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
|