On Tue, 11 May 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I'm concerned about this whole business of "guerrilla DC". I don't know how
> enforceable this whole thing is, but it seems to me to be unacceptable to
> have specialist groups unilaterally appropriating the DC prefix. (Although
> I guess you could argue that "DC-CHEM" is a completely separate namespace
> from "DC" [or "dc"] and that it doesn't imply official DC endorsement.)
I think this is quite an interesting issue, and I suspect there are a lot
of differing views as to the best way to approach management
of 'extensions' to DC.
I think two issues have been raised
- should extensions to DC elements be blessed with DC prefix in namespace?
- how do we keep track of good work others have done in formulating 'new'
schemas and extensions to existing schemas?
As regards the former I guess use of DC prefix is good publicity :-)
As regards the need to disclose information about recently invented
schemas, local usages etc .... for information within the EC funded DESIRE
project we are intending to set up a metadata registry one of the purposes
of which is to allow registration of local extensions to the DC 'canonical
definition' as well as registering local (non-DC) schemas. Our aim
initially is to consider the various formats in use amongst the services
offered by our project partners, so we would not just be considering DC.
You may already be aware of the MetaForm pages which go some way to
record DC extensions and usage. See
http://www2.sub.uni-goettingen.de/
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN (UK Office for Library and Information Networking)
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|