Carle writes:
> For consistency with other elements, the Dublin Core Data Model Group (as
> a
> result of its meeting in Crete on September 24-25) recommends the
> following
> change to the definition:
>
> "An identifier of a second resource or a free text string representing the
> second resource (e.g., a line of poetry), and the relationship of the
> second
> resource to the present resource.
[Jul,Erik]
That is regrettable. I had reported earlier to this list my
observation that readers of the RFC had difficulty interpreting the
definition, which seems to orient the nature of the relationship from the
point of view of the second resource.
Read the definition, above, again.
"... the relationship of the second resource to the present
resource."
Of course, what is wanted is the relationship of the *present*
resource to the second resource. Since this is the case, why can't we write
an English sentence that says just that?
"A pointer to a second resource...and the relationship of the
present resource to the second resource."
I recommend this, a second time, to the group.
--Erik
Erik Jul
[log in to unmask]
|