Actually - it sounds like you have, if anything, a better understanding
than I. It also sounds like we may be in violent agreement overall.
I'm honestly not thrilled with either name or email address since either
could change. (I rather like the ULAN approach of allowing any of a number
of legal variants for name - although I understand even that is not without
its problems.)
My big concern is that each metadata implementation pick some "hook" to
relate resources with their agents - but keep the metadata sets for the
agents logically separate from the resources they create. Taking the
logical extreme ... I could include an entire Vcard as the value of each
Agent, but who is ever going to go back and clean up all the obsolete
information as the agent's personal details change? As I understand it,
Jim is having trouble just going through and cleaning up Name - never mind
keeping up with other personal (changeable) details like phone numbers and
email addresses if they are replicated throughout the resource base - not
to mention wasting space storing the same information over and over and
over.
Simply put, my issue is that the more agent information we encourage people
to jam into a resource record using qualifiers, the more likely we are to
end up with a bunch of conflicting, useless, outdated detail.
Best Regards,
Peter M. Winn
Knowledge Management InformationTechnologies
Information Services International - Los Angeles, CA
Email: [log in to unmask]
Voice: (973)691-3853
Fax: (310)446-1626
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|