I like Simon's application of structure to the elements... it does make
more pedagoical sense, and making the DC easier to teach is an
enormously important issue. I'd be in favor of adding Dirk's explicit
statement about order NOT being significant, and reordering the elements
such that they fall into Simon's categories and describing the rationale
for the groupings as well.
stu
On Wednesday, October 29, 1997 11:48 AM, John A. Kunze
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> I've taken the liberty of changing the Subject line to what _I_ think
> Simon Cox meant by "element order". Simon, correct me if I
misunderstand,
> but I believe you are _not_ suggesting we require a certain ordering
of
> elements in a set of metadata (eg, embedded in an HTML doc).
>
> Instead, I believe you're suggesting that the draft RFC _explain_ the
> elements in a different sequence than that listed on the T-shirt.
> (I agree that the T-shirt sequence makes little pedagogical sense.)
>
> -John
> =========================
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:40:49 -0500
> From: Simon Cox <[log in to unmask]>
> To: DC-list <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: new draft of DC basic elements
>
> The draft RFC on DC basic elements quite understandably
> presents the elements in the now "classic" order which
> developed from the original proposals for the Dublin Core.
> However, there does not appear to be a clear consistent
> logic to the sequence
> (Title, Creator, Subject, Description, Publisher,
> Contributor, Date, Type, Format, Identifier, Source,
> Language, Relation, Coverage, Rights).
> I wonder if this very public roll-out would be
> an opportune time to improve on this?
>
> There are many ways to do this, of course.
> A simple way would be alphabetical.
>
> Better, perhaps, would be something reflecting functional
> behaviour, which might assist newcomers in coming to grips
> with the set. The latter is the main motivation in fiddling
> with the T-shirt rule in this way.
>
> I've commented elsewhere (to the datamodel working group)
> that there is some ambiguity in the element semantics
> under some circumstances, which effectively makes a
> unique functional grouping impossible.
> However, I suggest that something like the following
> sequence (and sub-headings?) makes some sense:
>
> Elements related mainly to the CONTENT of the resource
> Title
> Subject
> Description
> Language
> Coverage
>
> Elements related mainly to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY of the resource
> Creator
> Contributors
> Publisher
> Rights
> Source
> Relation
>
> Elements related mainly to the INSTANTIATION of the resource
> Identifier
> Format
> Type
> Date
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Dr Simon Cox - Australian Geodynamics Cooperative Research Centre
> CSIRO Exploration & Mining, PO Box 437, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
> T: +61 8 9389 8421 F: +61 8 9389 1906 [log in to unmask]
> http://www.ned.dem.csiro.au/SimonCox/
>
>
|