 |
 |
+cc: stu I'd love an answer to this question. However, rather than discuss it here, I suggest we simply ask Stu Weibel to supply us with an answer. Discussion and debate can be useful, but I don't believe the particular expertise concentrated on dc-architecture is best suited to answering this question. Stu: does this seem reasonable? Could you give an answer for this FAQ, to feed into the dc-arch docs? What I would like to see on this list are some implementors claiming victory w.r.t. the current proposed RDF/DCQ spec! Are we done yet? Hands up anybody who feels they've got it implemented (in whole or part...). Dan (still in catch-up mode...) On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote: > On further reflection: my opposition to stamping "Dublin Core" on lots > of things besides the original Element Set dates back to a time when > there was talk about branching out into different types of metadata > besides simple resource discovery. This hasn't happened, so perhaps we > _should_ use "Dublin Core" more generally than for "the Dublin Core" > per se -- ie, for a small vocabulary for cross-domain resource > discovery following particular principles. > > I hate to keep posting on this old issue, but we should at least have > an answer to "What is the Dublin Core?" > > What do others think? > > Tom > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote: > > There have been noisy discussions about this in the past. "Dublin > > Core" is problematic as a name, but we're stuck with it. > > > > The issue is whether "the Dublin Core" is a well-known set of fifteen > > "core" elements printed on tee-shirts, or whether "Dublin Core" has in > > fact turned into a generic brand name that can and should be stamped > > onto other products of this process, such as technical specs, > > qualifiers, controlled vocabularies, and various other "non-core" > > elements. > > > > I have always come down very strongly on the side of seeing "the Dublin > > Core" as that small set of "core" elements, even if that set may evolve > > a bit over time. Using the string "DCMI" has the advantage of not > > implying "coreness" or muddying the identity of "the Dublin Core". For > > the past year, at any rate, DCMI has been using "DCMI" pretty > > consistently in the names of working groups, in press releases, and on > > the Web site. I take your point about future organizations controlling > > the namespace but do not see this as a major problem. > > > > Tom > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > > > Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > 2) http://purl.org/dc/terms/ - "Dublin Core terms" (no!) > > > > > > I understand that there is a lot of confusion over DC vs. DCMI, etc. > > > However, I personally feel that keeping the purl.org/dc/ is important for > > > consistency and understandability. As others have said, Dublin Core has > > > become a "brand name" -- DCMI has not. People understand what DC and Dublin > > > Core are -- in fact, the DCMI website is at dublincore.org. > > > > > > In addition to that, there is another distinction I see. Dublin Core is a > > > concept -- an idea. DCMI is an organization. The Dublin Core terms will live > > > on long after the DCMI is gone. In fact, it is possible that in the future a > > > new organization will take control of the creation of Dublin Core terms, in > > > which case they should have an appropriate namespace. > > > > > > Please, let's just leave it at DC. > > > > > > -- > > > [ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask] > > GMD Library > > Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352 > > 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619 > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask] > GMD Library > Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352 > 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619 > >