On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Rachel Heery wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, David Bearman wrote:
> >
...
> > Date created
> > Date to be reviewed
> > IPR (of the metadata itself)
> > Organisation that created metadata
> >
> > I would argue that this data is outside the scope of DC :-) It is
> > structured according to a schema in its own 'namespace', its part of a
> > different model. DC does have to have limits doesn't it?
>
> Yes, but if these metadata records turn out to have similar properties
> to documents (titles, creation dates, creator names, organisations
> etc.), there's a strong case for using Dublin Core concepts instead of
> re-inventing all these in an administrative metadata vocabulary.
> (one persons metadata is another's data and all that...).
>
> 'Date-to-be-reviewed' is a good counter example though. So some -- but
> not all -- administrative metadata might simply be more DC about the
> 'resource' that is the primary metadata.
To me 'Date-to-be-reviewed' is just an expiry date (of some kind). Any
resource may have expiry dates, objects out there as well as well as
metadata objects. What differs is not really the semantics but
what you do about it.
>
> Dan
Siggie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|