> > <META
> > NAME="dc.scheme.bciom"
> > URL="http://where/you/can/get/a/definition/of/the/profile"
> > CONTENT="BSI:12008-1997, British Cataloguing in Online Media"
> > >
> > where the CONTENT identifies a hypothetical standard to which all the
> > given schemes relate, and CONTENT is a title or identifying name.
>
> The trouble with this is that there are many occasions where a
> professional service might wish to use more than one subject scheme in the
> same set of metadata.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear -- I should have said,
where the URL identifies a hypothetical standard to which all the
given schemes marked with the prefix "bciom" relate, and
CONTENT is a title or identifying name.
> For example OMNI (one of the SBIGs that uses the
> ROADS software) have records containing both UDC and MESH headings. We
> can't say that the above applies to all following dc.scheme META elements
> either as (as has been brought up many times on this list), the HTML spec
> is "broken" (IMHO) and allows the META elements to be reordered.
No. That's why I wasn't suggesting that :-)
Instead, each field can be marked specifically -- hence, you could
use
dc.author.udc.writer
dc.author.mesh.artistic-creator
where "writer" and "artistic creator" are fields defined by UDC and
MESH respectively, that more or less correspond to the DC Author field.
Lee
