Simon Pockley wrote:
>
> it seems pragmatic (logical), at this point, to argue
> for an appropriate `Type' (image/moving) ... The various
> painting galleries etc might like (image/still).
Yes - this is more like the way to do it.
This looks like sub-Types to me, i.e. a refined scheme
for DC.Type, accomplished by subbing the base types.
In which case, I believe that we are back in agreement
that video, film etc are part of the *general* class of
resources of DC.Type="image" (or "graphic" ...)
This leaves the current proposal intact.
Moving on to your proposal, which moves beyond the scope of
the working group proposal as it deals with qualified DC,
I see two issues:
1. As soon as we go beyond the basic 7 (text/image/sound etc),
then we start heading into territory already staked-out
by myriad other authorities, whose lists should be re-used
rather than re-invented. Text types are particularly
well studied (see Andrew Daviel's lists at
http://andrew.triumf.ca/TYPE.html for example).
Perhaps you are aware of authoritative treatments of image-types.
Perhaps *you* would like to start pulling together resources
and proposals for these (also look at AAT and AMICO lists,
for example) ... ?
2. However, the mechanisms to be used to do most additional
qualification or structuring of element content in DC is not
yet clear - for example the DC-datamodel work has not yet
gotten to properly defining the various generic forms of
flavours-of/components-of/vocabularies-for DC elements that I
think comprise the full arsenal. This leaves us in a bit of
a no-man's-land meanwhile in terms of stable implementations.
Nevertheless, probably very worthwhile beginning to determine
requirements, along the lines commenced here.
--
__________________________________________________
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/
|