The term Document Like Object originated at the first workshop... all
blame devolves to me. We used it then simply as a way to limit the
scope of what we tried to do AT THAT MEETING... not, as is sometimes
implied, to limit the scope of what the Dublin Core should eventually
be.
At DC-3 the scope was enlarged to include images, but again, not
excluding other things, but rather saying "We've looked at this part of
the problem, and DC seems to fit pretty well to a first approximation."
We've long since outgrown the DLO notion, though David is probably
correct that we're still hobbled to some degree by our original
bibliographic outlook. That's not to say we cannot evolve, and I hope
that people will continue to look for ways to fulfill the
cross-disciplinary potential that is so important to resource
description in the Internet Commons.
I don't care to tell the museum community (at least as represented by
the CIMI test bed project) that they should not pursue resource
description in a particular way. I do hope that our discourse will help
them clarify their rationale, and that it will lead to clear guidelines
that can be deployed in a relatively consistent manner. Did I mention
that it should be in three sentences or less?
stu
|