Erik Jul wrote:
> Misha wrote:
> > The RFC must reflect this reality, and give pride of place to item 1.
> >
> [Jul,Erik]
>
> If that is the case, it must be expressed properly in English. The
> current definition is confusing. My only evidence for this is my
> observation of hundreds of skilled and experienced would be users who have
> read the current defintion--
>
> "An identifier of a second resource and its relationship to
> the present resource.+
>
> only to stumble on the phrase, "...its relationship to the present
> resource."
>
> This has led many to think that the relationship is to be expressed
> from the point of view of the second resource: *its* [the second
> resource's] relationship to the present resource.
>
> If you want the value of the element to be the identifier, then I
> would suggest that you call the element "related resource," or "identifier
> of related resource."
I omitted to say, in my mail, that your point about the polarity of the
Relation element is absolutely correct. I was responding to a different
suggestion that you had made, namely to mention the relation type first and
the related object second.
> I follow the logic of your argument, Misha, but a scheme that
> requires deep understanding of the underlying data model for interpretation
> is not likely to be commonly understood or used properly.
>
> Since the RFC describes unqualified DC ("... a Dublin Core element
> may be expressed without qualification (as described in this RFC)..."
> [http://purl.org/docs/metadata/DC/reports/std-elements.html]) and, as you
> say, the relationship is a qualifier, then logically the definition of
> Relation in the RFC for unqualified DC should say "The identifier of a
> second resource," or perhaps even more clearly, "The identifier of a related
> resource."
>
> Leave off the mention of the relationship. It's unqualified DC. It
> cannot be expressed.
That may be the best solution. What do others think?
> Accepting Misha's argument against my earlier proposal, I suggest
> that the definition is still troubled in ways that I have pointed out. The
> good news, it seems, it that correction is not difficult, only necessary.
>
> --Erik
>
> Erik Jul
> [log in to unmask]
Misha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
|