On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Misha Wolf wrote:
> What is absolutely clear is that we (the DC community) have, more or less,
> agreed on unqualified DC, ie the fifteen elements, and that we have not,
> even remotely, agreed on qualified DC. To say this does not add to the
> total amount of confusion. For Reggie to present unqualified and qualified
> DC as if they somehow had the same level of credibility *does* add to the
> confusion and to the controversy.
Most (if not all) DC editors use some form of qualified DC.
This is the demand from users.
The solution is to work towards agreeing on what qualified DC is.
> What I mean is that the RDF property types that Reggie uses for qualified DC
> are quite different from the corresponding property types agreed by the DC
> Data Model WG. Maybe I've missed something, but it was my impression that
> one of the main purposes of this WG is to define the data model and its
> representation in RDF. If you disagree with our decisions, please speak up.
> After all, you are a WG member.
The datamodel WG proposes to put a _value_ into, for example
DC:Relation (eg: isBasisFor). Reggie (v1.0) cannot do that.
Reggie can only support the sub-element facility (for now).
(Happy to talk about the details here offline..)
Also, what the datamodel WG does, still needs to make its
way upto the Meta2 list for ratification before that becomes
part of any qualified DC standard??
Cheers... Renato
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dr Renato Iannella http://www.dstc.edu.au/renato/
DSTC Pty Ltd phone://61.7/3365.4310
Uni Qld, 4072, AUSTRALIA fax://61.7/3365.4311
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://purl.org/dstc/Day-In-The-Life-Of-Metadata-Seminar-May-98
|