On 2/24/12 6:38 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
>
> 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.
But aren't the guidelines "guidelines" not rules? The question is not
what is or isn't in the guidelines, but what we think is the best practice.
Note that the *definition* of dc:coverage includes spatial and temporal
*topics*. Are you saying that you wish for there to be two options for
spatial and temporal topics? I think that removing the usage guideline
means the answer to that is "yes." So I ask: is that a good idea?
I also think that because the definition of dc:coverage explicitly
states spatial and temporal topics, without some explanation there is
increased ambiguity when the guideline is removed.
kc
>
> Tom
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|