 |
 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 [log in to unmask] wrote: > When I first raised the question of using DC to describe non-networked > resources, I recieved a resounding negative response citing objections from > the museum community in particular. > > When I asked a second time there were not only no negative responses, but > some positive ones. The existence of a "Physical Object" on Simon's most > recent list of types would apear that we have indeed relaxed the networked > resource restriction for using DC. Personally, I'd always considered that DC was perfectly capable of describing non-networked resources, and have always used it to do such. It is true that digital resources are EASIER to describe 'properly', but much of the clarification emerging from the data model work offers some nice hooks to start re-integrating the physical world. I certainly hope that work going on with the Data Model and in related initiatives such as the museum's community CIMI Dublin Core Test bed will result in something that's equally robust for describing digital ephemera and physical reality... ;-) ...now... back to pondering a sensible way to assign URIs to physical objects in RDF... ;-) Paul == dr. paul miller ============== [log in to unmask] == collections manager, archaeology data service, king's manor york, YO1 7EP, UK tel: +44 (0)1904 43 3954 == http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ ========= fax: +44 (0)1904 43 3939 ==