 |
 |
Hi everyone, I have followed the discussion on the DCAP Guidelines with some interest but also with a sense of detachment because the direction Dublin Core has taken left me behind long ago. (For those who do not know me, I manage the metadata standards and workflow for HealthInsite, a gateway to health information for Australians.) I welcomed the original Dublin Core because of the simple framework and the straightforward DC dot notation for embedded metadata in HTML pages. As well as being machine-readable (our system has no trouble harvesting DC dot), it was also concise and human-readable. This made it easy for me to explain the coding to people in our partner organisations - the people who create and update metadata records for us range from highly experienced cataloguers down to administration officers - simplicity is vital. The simple framework was also important to me because it meant I could concentrate my efforts on our two most important attributes: subject and date.modified. Dublin Core has become far more complex with the move towards more semantically-correct coding and RDF. I can see that this might be useful for some communities within Dublin Core but for me it is horrible. I do not understand much of the documentation (eg the DCMI Abstract Model) and I do not have time to undertake the study required to interpret it. The changes in terminology (eg element, description) are particularly confusing. The DCAP document is more readable but I do not think I will need to create a HealthInsite application profile because we follow AGLS. My focus is on metadata content - making sure that it is accurate and that it is updated to match updates in the resources that we link to. This is where I worry a lot about Dublin Core. There seems to be an assumption that, when the technical coding framework is in place, then everyone will create/maintain accurate, consistent metadata content and (hey presto!) the Semantic Web will connect everybody to everything and will always be up-to-date. Accuracy and consistency requires intensive ongoing quality control which is expensive. Without quality control, poor quality metadata can hinder searching - this was the experience with the whole-of-government search engine for the Australian government sector. As you can see, I am a Semantic Web sceptic. For the time being, HealthInsite will continue as a legacy DC implementation. To upgrade would be expensive both for us and our partner organisations, with no clear benefit to support a business case for funding. I would be interested to know if there are other sites using legacy implementations of DC. Regards, Prue Prue Deacon Metadata Manager, HealthInsite Editorial Team Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing [log in to unmask] phone: 61 2 6289 7505 http://www.healthinsite.gov.au ______________________________________________________________________ "Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error please notify the author immediately and delete all copies of this transmission."