On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 07:23:44PM -0400, Eric Miller wrote:
> > I believe what you and Pete are requesting is that the registry provide rdf
> > schemas in non-enUS languages. Your requirement has been heard.
> I am not asking for this. I'm asking for the RDF Schemas in non-enUS
> languages. The DCMI registry (again in my mind, and i hope some of the
> above digging may help shape some of my biases/perspectives) is simply
> *one os many* applications that provide a thin human navigatable
> interface through the RDF data (Schemas and instance alike) .
In strong support of Eric's requirement, it is worth taking
a look back at "Plans for a distributed registry of Dublin
Core in multiple languages"  -- a position paper that
evolved over the course of three or four meetings of the WG
for DC in Multiple Languages in 1997 and 1998 (including the
meeting between Eric, Shigeo, and myself that Eric alludes
to in a previous message).
If nothing else, those meetings (and meetings since then)
repeatedly confirmed the basic model that translations of
DC terms would be maintained by organizations in Helsinki,
Paris, etc, and made available as RDF schemas for HTTP GET.
It may make sense to centralize those translations in the
registry database for the prototype phase, but I would be
very disappointed if it were to remain at that. I believe I
have made this point before though I cannot find the posting
in the archives.
It's not entirely clear to me why Harry and Eric seem to be
disagreeing above, but if Harry is saying that the registry
should _output_ RDF schemas in non-enUS languages (stored
in a central database at OCLC) as opposed to taking them as
_input_ from various maintenance agencies, then this would
seem to be the opposite of the design discussed in .
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-171-408-5784
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-1408