My recollection is that the basic subelements would be part of DC-Simple.
It might be that many people will not want to utilize the relation
subelements, for example, but many will want to distinguish between
corportate and personal names, indicate address information, etc. Also,
the subelement report recommends syntax for subelements, so this should be
part of it. I don't think the subelements are too much to handle.
I do remember leaving Helsinki with a BURNING DESIRE to wrap up
subelements, and I think this was motivated by the feeling that it was
very important for those poor people out there suffering with DC-Clueless.
Merrilee
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Ron Daniel Jr. wrote:
> At 08:13 AM 1/28/98 -0500, Jul,Erik wrote:
> >List Readers:
> >
> >I wonder if we are of one mind regarding DC-Simple, which I understand
> >to mean the set of fifteen Dublin Core elements and their definitions.
> >
> >All other additions would belong to some version of DC-"whatever," but
> >*not* DC-Simple.
>
> I *strongly* agree with Erik on this point. I think we should have
> schemas like:
> Dublin/Core - the 15. (And it should mention LANG, SCHEME, ... for
> syntaxes that don't provide native support for such things.
> RDF has other ways of expressing those concepts.)
> Dublin/Relation - The family of relations from David Bearman's group
> Dublin/Type - The resource types (e.g. Text.Thesis.Doctoral) that
> we agreed on earlier.
> etc.
>
> Ron Daniel Jr. voice:+1 505 665 0597
> Advanced Computing Lab fax:+1 505 665 4939
> MS B287 email:[log in to unmask]
> Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel
> Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545
>
>
|