> As for the thread... I am wondering where, if anywhere, a dumb-down rule
> should be articulated in the abstract model.
DumbDown has been a core issue for DublinCore for many years.
It's has been a distinctive feature of DC -
> Is there a coherent way to express the notion that, if an application
> encounters a non-DCMI term, then the value of that term is to be (a)
> interpreted as a dumbed-down (un-qualified) term, or (b) ignored, or
> (c)...something else?
> Or is this simply better left to another document on mixing namespaces?
DC is using various namespaces/ vocabularies (properties and classes)
It is doing "namespace mixing" by itself.
In my view it should NOT matter for an ABSTRACT model, whether a
vocabulary is maintained by the initiative or not.
Users must be able to determine whether their approach to think
about metadata allows an interpretation in the DC world and if so
how a DC application possibly acts on the vocabulary they provide.
Drawing on various namespaces in my view is another important feature
of DC. It is core for the policy, that DC tries to avoid to re-invent
In my view that's a good design decision and it should not become