> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Cox [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>
>
[snip]
This paper is posted at
http://www.agcrc.csiro.au/projects/3018CO/metadata/dc_tf/type_1.html
The text is as follows:
[snip]
> These can be defined and used as follows:
>
Just some general questions regarding the definitions:
Is the DC community or the responsible WG making reference to any
existing definitions? If so, could they (or, shouldn't they) be cited?
If the DC community or the responsible WG is not refering to other
existing definitions, why not?
How will we know that we have a good definition? How will we know to
what extent our definitions agree or disagree with usage in other
resource description communities? Upon what authority will the DC
definitions be based? And why do we imaging that the definitions will
be accepted by other resource description communities?
My concern is that definitions that are not demonstrably anchored in an
awareness and appreciation of existing lexicographies may, for lack of
such awareness *or* proof of such awareness (through citation), fail to
achieve the level of acceptance needed to achieve the stated goal of
"interoperability."
Perhaps a subsequent draft of the document in question can orient itself
and its users to the lexical traditions to which it adheres or from
which it departs.
--Erik
Erik Jul
[log in to unmask]
>
|