 |
 |
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Terry Allen wrote: > Jon Knight writes: >> We've had "Affiliation" down as a value of the Type qualifier for >> Author > > I think this is the wrong tack. > > http://www.oclc.org:5046/oclc/research/conferences/metadata/dublin_core_report.html > > doesn't list a Type qualifier for Author No, but the original report is well over a year and a half old now and I think we've moved things on a bit since then. > , and indeed the example given > would suggest that one stuffs all that address info into the content > of Author or leaves it out: > > Author (scheme=USMARC) = 100 1 Doyle, Author Conan $c Sir, $d 1859-1930 In this example we've got a Scheme qualifier so we already know that the metadata that's inserted corresponds to an external structuring convention (in this USMARC). I view Type qualifiers as being there for the times when people don't have an external Scheme to reference, or maybe even if they wish to emphasis which part of an external scheme that they're using. > (assuming a typo there after the first comma ...) where Doyle's dates > would be replaced or augmented by his email address. Email address > is not a type of author, it's information for which no specific slot > has been provided in DC (along with much else). Nor is OtherAgent > expected to be something about Author. Lee is right that there's > no way to *encode* this info in DC:Author; that's okay. Well I think that there _is_ a way to encode this information; according to Paul Miller's "Metadata for the Masses" article use of Type & Scheme it would be something like: <META NAME="DC.author" CONTENT="(TYPE=name) Jon Knight"> <META NAME="DC.author" CONTENT="(TYPE=email) [log in to unmask]"> <META NAME="DC.author" CONTENT="(TYPE=affiliation) Dept. Computer Studies, Loughborough University"> I've got that in some of my web pages already and I can't really see a problem with it. > Address and affiliation information for an author might well be > pointed to (one would want a qualifier for that, but not Type), > and might well be in some popular format other than DC (this kind > of info is the object of half a dozen Internet Drafts by now). If its in an external metadata structure we'll probably want it in a Scheme, just like the USMARC example you gave above. > In HTML, you could provide it in META outside the DC META elements. > Do we really need to shoehorn it into what Stu wants to finish > this month as DC 1.1? (Assuming that 1.0 is the version published at > the URL above.) I wouldn't say its shoe horning at all; it seems to fit in quite nicely. Tatty bye, Jim'll -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU. * I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *