On Fri, 21 May 1999, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> I'm sympathetic to the argument that unapproved qualifiers should not be
> given defacto endorsement in the the HTML draft, but at the same time, we
> all know that virtually all DC implementations use some form of qualifiers,
> and it is important that John's document give the best guidance that we can
> to support this syntactically, even if we don't agree on the qualifier
> semantics.
The DC DataModel WG work has clearly indicated the semantic
problem with subelements [1] and is developing an XML/RDF syntax to
address this.
Hence, we should NOT be promoting a HTML syntax that does not take
this important difference into account.
My recommendation would be to scope the DCHTML document
to Version 1.0 only.
[1] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-datamodel/files/decisions.html
Cheers... Renato
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dr Renato Iannella http://www.dstc.edu.au/renato
Leader, Resource Discovery Unit phone://61.7/3365.4310
DSTC Pty Ltd fax://61.7/3365.4311
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|