You're right, of course. I think I meant "extension" as a shorthand for
"an element defined somewhere other than by DC". I never meant "a
DC-sanctioned non-DC element". Thanks for keeping me honest.
--Robin
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Carl Lagoze wrote:
> Can we please stop using the term "extension to the Dublin Core"? Can't we
> just accept the notion, which I thought we accepted at the Warwick meeting
> many years ago, which was expressed in the Warwick Framework, and which is
> embodied in the design of RDF, that the DC15 will co-exist with many other
> metadata sets (in separate namespaces)? These other sets are not extensions
> of DC15 but are co-existing components in a broader metadata universe.
> Somehow we've transformed the DC15 in the past few years from simple
> metadata for basic resource discovery to the keystone from which all
> metadata extends. To paraphrase an old maxim "what's are the three keys to
> a successful metadata effort: scoping, scoping, and scoping".
>
> Carl
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Carl Lagoze, Digital Library Scientist
> Department of Computer Science, Cornell University
> Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
> Phone: +1-607-255-6046
> FAX: +1-607-255-4428
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
> WWW: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/lagoze/lagoze.html
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robin Wendler [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 12:53 PM
> > To: Ray Denenberg
> > Cc: DC General
> > Subject: Re: audience, purpose, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> >
> > > Three approaches to accomodating 'audience' have been considered:
> > > (1) Add it as the 16th element.
> > > (2) Wedge it into one of the existing 15 elements: subject,
> > description,
> > > or coverage.
> > > (3) Include it in element sets that are supersets of, or which
> > > "import", DC.
> > >
> > > If 'audience' were a core element, (1) or (2) would be appropriate
> > > (which one, (1) or (2), is beyond the scope of this message) but
> > > assuming that 'audience' is not core, that leaves approach (3),
> > > which is criticized because of the possibility of interoperability
> > > problems caused by the potential proliferation of
> > 'audience' elements
> > > in different element sets.
> >
> > Let me add that option 2 has interoperability problems as
> > well, just of a
> > different nature. For example, given the spatio-temporal definition of
> > Coverage, if you stick audience in it, you will have violated
> > the commonly
> > understood semantics of the element, causing it to lose its
> > meaning. This
> > diminishes interoperability.
> >
> > Not every data element each of us requires, nor even every
> > data element
> > many of us require, needs to be shoehorned into DC. Let's
> > work on common
> > extensions rather than stretch the existing elements out of
> > recognition.
> > If you have to hunt this hard for a place to stuff it, it
> > probably belongs
> > in an extension.
> >
> > --Robin
> >
> > Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
> > Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
> > Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
> > Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
> >
>
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|