> >least call it "DC 2" or "DC1998".
>
> I have to agree that altering the basic syntax of DC should only be done as
> a clear change to the DC version after as many changes as are thought
> necessary have been aired and agreed.
As you imply, version control is important - even/especially in proposed
standards
>
> The worst thing that can be done is to provide instability to something that
> is could become a universal standard. Yes there does need to be flexibility
> and adaptability, but if developers see something that is in constant flux
> they will be put off from adopting in, preferring to wait until DC is fixed
> before investing in it.
But that's the problem. Should we regard DC something that is now/about
to become a universal standard? Or is it more of a prototype? Something
that has prompted a lot of learning to take place but, like all
prototypes, is rightly to be discarded in favour of a successor which is
more robust with respect to the variety of domain-specific descriptive
metadata systems that either already exist or are themselves in
preparation.
> I believe attention should be focussed upon promoting large scale
> implementations DC and in sorting out multilingual vocabulary and key words
> for the current version before any major public alterations in basic syntax.
This depends on whether you think that the basic syntax is indeed right.
If it is not yet right then anyone undertaking large scale implementation
of DC should plan now to ensure possible migration away from the DC
prototype.
Peter
ps have just re-read: must be the Monday blues
******
Edinburgh University Data Library
Scotland, UK
tel: +44 (0) 131 650 3301 fax: +44 (0) 131 650 3308
Email: [log in to unmask] URL http://edina.ed.ac.uk
|