 |
 |
Rachel said: > 3. Element: I would suggest acknowledging the ambiguity in usage. > > In 'general world of metadada', if there is such a thing, [Whoo.... "metadada"... now that's a concept and a half... ;-) ] > elements might well be defined as: > > Elements: the formally defined terms which are > used to describe attributes or properties of a resource. > > By this definition all DCMI terms are 'elements'. > > However within DCMI 'elements' is frequently used as > shorthand for the 15 core elements (and audience). I think > this needs to be acknowledged in the glossary. I agree with making the distinction between the more generic usage of "element" to mean a property of a resource and the DCMI-specific use of "element" to mean one of a specific set of properties managed by DCMI. However, I'm not sure it's quite accurate to say that all "DCMI terms" are "elements" in this more generic sense? Following http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/ > A DCMI term is a DCMI element, a DCMI qualifier or term from a DCMI-maintained controlled vocabulary. My interpretation is that DCMI elements and DCMI element refinements are both "elements" in the sense of the more generic definition (which I think of as equivalent to "Property" in RDF), but DCMI encoding schemes and terms from DCMI-maintained controlled vocabularies are not? > 6. I think 'registry' should either point to 'metadata > registry' (as this is how the term tends to be used within > DCMI); or if you feel it appropriate use a wider definition > for 'registry', something like 'a directory of metadata about > schemas, services, or other particular categories of resources'. Yes, I think we need to be more careful with our use of "registry". I would actually like to see us use "schema registry" or "metadata schema registry" (rather than "metadata registry") for applications like the DCMI registry. To me, a "metadata registry" might provide access to metadata about all sorts of resources... but maybe that's just me ;-) Cheers Pete