> From [log in to unmask] Mon Sep 8 15:38 MET 2003
> X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
> X-RAL-Connect: <kelly.bath.ac.uk [138.38.32.20]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Importance: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
> X-Scanner: 81a771a73669722f74a482b706a7e1674d3ad15d
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:42:15 +0100
> From: Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Dublin Core Abstract Model
> To: [log in to unmask]
> X-Spam-Report: -0.5/5.0
> ------------- Start der SpamAssassin Auswertung ---------------
> Diese Mail ist wahrscheinlich Spam. Die Orginal-Nachricht wurde
> geaendert, so das Sie aehnliche Mails in der Zukunft besser
> erkennen und blockieren koennen.
> Weitere Details finden Sie unter der URL http://spamassassin.org/tag/.
> Details der Inhaltsanalyse: (-0.50 Punkte, 5 benoetigt)
> IN_REP_TO (-0.5 points) 'In-Reply-To' Zeile gefunden
> ---------------- Ende der SpamAssassin Auswertung -----------------
>
> Looking at
>
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/abstract-model/
>
> I noticed that the description of Qualified DC in section 3 specifies
> that each property must be an element or element refinement recommended
> by the DCMI,
Think Rachel's already made a remark on the issue. This restriction is not really what
we want. We first should say, what model DCMI has w.r.t. metadata in general.
Then we can continue in indicating what a simple DC or qualified DC interpretation
of a given record should/could mean.
Seems un-practical to me to insist on using DC vocabulary exclusively in a record -
> but it does not specify that encoding schemes are limited
> to those recommended by DCMI.
> I wasn't sure whether this was intentional or not?
>
> Cheers
> Pete
>
>
|