On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Liddy Nevile wrote:
> I originally thought that we should think about solving the
> accessibility community's problem of pointing to alternative resources
> by using a new dc:relation:isEquivalentTo qualifier - now I am more
> interested in having a dc:relation:isAlternativeTo qualification.
> Equivalent and alternative content are not exactly the same but
> equivalent content is alternative, so that works.
>
> Please comment on this.
Sounds reasonable, but we already have isFormatOF and hasFormat (the
latter being defined as
The described resource is the same intellectual content of the
referenced resource, but presented in another format.
) so why not use them?
> Instead, as conformance is often important, why not go for a new dc
> element dc:conformsTo and then it is easily identified, useful in many
> contexts, and can have suitable meaningful qualifiers such as
> dc:conformsTo:accessibility (resource's accessibility) and
> dc:conformsTo:metadata (resource's metadata) and dc:conformsTo:encoding
> (stuff about the resource with values like XHTML) etc...
We already have dcterms:conformsTo, defined as
A reference to an established standard to which the resource conforms.
Provided that you can define a URI that corresponds to appropriate
accessibility standard/conformance level I don't see any problem with
using this?
I don't underdstand what you mean by dc:conformsTo:metadata ?
dc:conformsTo:encoding is just dc:format isn't it?
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|