 |
 |
Oh, sure, Terry... ask the HARD questions. As if we don't have enough trouble with the easier ones. my oversimplification is: The Dublin Core represents one attempt at what Tom Baker describes as 'pidgin metadata' (the bee interoperability metaphor also works). It purports to approach a simple core which is perhaps necessary (or at least useful), but certainly not sufficient. The path to sufficiency will require some unspecified number of additional 'packages' of metadata, and if you don't have a formal spec for parsing them *AND* understanding the semantics therein, you prolly don't want to look in the first place, so lets hope there aren't TOO many of them. I suspect this is not radically different than what Terry is asking for? If the criticism is that we have chosen yet-another-way-to-skin-the-cat, I'm not sure I can assert otherwise. The WF is even more vaporous than the DC at this point, so anyone who can put together a useful system can probably carry the day. Call it whatever. Gee, if Warwick Cathro did it, we could call it the Warwick Warwick World Wide Web Whereistic. Or not. That still leaves the semantics. Librarians will do MARC and whatever. MapMavens will do FGDC and whatever. Museum informaticians will do whatever.