Hi
Some thoughts on the DC in HTML guidelines...
On Fri 15-Feb-2002 at 05:13:04 +0100, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> I was just looking at our HTML guidelines and saw that they say:
>
> <link rel = "schema.DC
> href = "http://purl.org/DC/elements/1.0/">
>
> (in: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt) and
>
> <link
> rel="schema.DC"
> href="http://dublincore.org/qdcmes/1.0/"
> title="DCMES plus DCMI recommended qualifiers">
>
> (in: http://dublincore.org/documents/2000/08/15/dcq-html/)
<snip />
> It sounds like we need to revise both guidelines and the Usage Guide
> examples and make them up-to-date. People are using them.
>
> Any suggestions?
I have no idea about how one would go about updating the RFC, but I
guess it shouldn't be too hard to update this document (I really think
it needs doing):
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/
Regarding the inconsistencies with the namespace document [1], I think
that these are what the schema links should be updated to, all three
will often be needed for qualified DC in HTML (should it use
XHTML rather than HTML?):
<link rel="schema.dc" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
title="Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1 (15 elements)" />
<link rel="schema.dc" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" title="DCMI
elements and DCMI qualifiers (other than those elements defined in the
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1 above)" />
<link rel="schema.dc" href="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/" title="DCMI
terms in the DCMI Type Vocabulary (a DCMI controlled vocabulary)" />
Perhaps the type attribute should also be used?
Also I agree with the proposal from Andy that using dc:title format
would be more consistent -- see this thread:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0111&L=dc-architecture&P=R2840
Could this be included in an update to the document?
And finally I have been thinking about the fact that in the DCQ RDF
proposal [2] this is recomended:
<dc:identifier rdf:resource="http://www.myorg"/>
Rather than (something like) this:
<dc:identifier>
<dcterms:URI>
http://www.myorg
</dcterms:URI>
</dc:identifier>
This is done since there is no need to use the more verbose format since
URIs are special in RDF, I think that perhaps something similar applies
in (X)HTML where URIs and links are also special.
For example would something like this:
<link rel="dc.relation.hasPart" href="http://example.com/foo/" />
Make more sense than this:
<meta name="dc.relation.hasPart" scheme="URI"
content="http://example.com/foo/" />
The advantages that I can see are:
1. Some UAs, like Mozilla, support link rels and allow people to use
them to vist the thing that is being linked to.
2. Additional attributes such as, hreflang [3], type [4], charset [5],
and title [6] could be used, these can't be used with meta [7].
Just a thought :-)
Chris
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/10/26/dcmi-namespace/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/11/30/dcq-rdf-xml/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#adef-hreflang
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#adef-type-A
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#adef-charset
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-title
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-META
--
Chris Croome <[log in to unmask]>
web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/
web content management http://mkdoc.com/
everything else http://chris.croome.net/
|