On 24 February 2012 22:20, Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Since 2006, the usage "comment" for the definition of dc:subject (and since
> 2008, dcterms:subject) has included the following sentence [1,2,3]:
>
> To describe the spatial or temporal topic of the resource, use the Coverage
> element.
>
> The intent was to provide guidance on when to use Coverage:
>
> The spatial or temporal topic of the resource... [5]
>
> and when to use Subject, which had a clearly overlapping definition:
>
> The topic of the resource. [6]
>
> I recently had a chat about this with Gordon, who points out -- and I'll
> let him elaborate -- that current notions of subject ("aboutness") do not
> treat "spatial or temporal" topics separately from any other topics.
>
> In my reading of meeting notes and decision documents from the time (see
> "Background" below), the addition of the sentence quoted above to the Comment
> for Subject was not intended as a clarification of the formal definition of
> Subject, but rather as guidance about "which element to use" at a time when
> people commonly wanted to use the fifteen elements in non-overlapping ways.
>
> If this usage guideline is now unhelpful, should it be removed (after due
> process of course)?
Is this a bit like the relationship between 'creator', 'publisher' and
the more general/vague 'contributor'?
Dan
> Tom
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Background
>
> The sentence from the Comment for Subject, quoted above, was added at the time
> the definition of Coverage was changed from:
>
> The extent or scope of the content of the resource. [4]
>
> to:
>
> The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability
> of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is
> relevant. [5]
>
> as explained in [3]. This brought the definition of Coverage very close to the
> definition of Subject:
>
> The topic of the resource. [6]
>
> At the time, it was widely felt that Dublin Core elements should not overlap in
> meaning; indeed, it was not until 2008 that Creator was declared to be a
> subproperty of Contributor [7]. As near as I can tell, then, the sentence
> quoted above was added to the usage comment for Subject in an effort to provide
> guidance to users about "which element to use" in a case where two definitions
> clearly overlapped.
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#subject
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject
> [3] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2006/2006-03.dcmes-changes.shtml
> [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/08/28/dcmi-terms/#coverage
> [5] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/12/18/dcmi-terms/#coverage
> [6] http://dublincore.org/documents/2006/12/18/dcmi-terms/#subject
> [7] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2008/dcterms-changes/#sect-3
>
> --
> Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|