On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 02:56:43PM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I think changing the definition of dc:subject would, in fact, have
> to also change the definition of dc:coverage. In addition, it would
> require people to make the difficult distinction between "topically
> about" and "geographically applicable," something that I think is
> extremely hard and therefore not something we should require of
> people using DC. The current situation is not ideal, by any means,
> but I believe that the suggested change would make it worse.
To be clear, the definition of dc:subject would remain unchanged: "The topic of
the resource". No definitions would change. The change I am proposing is that
the usage guideline -- that Coverage be used instead of Subject to describe the
spatial or temporal topic of the resource -- be dropped.
This does not mean that anyone would have to change what they are doing --
e.g., to start using Subject for describe spatial or temporal topics instead of
Coverage. However, it is not incorrect to use Subject with a spatial or
temporal topic, and removing the usage guideline would remove any ambiguity in
this regard.
Tom
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|