On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> a. There is some feeling that Coverage should be used only for what might be
> termed non-fiction works.
I think that's something that the creator of the metadata should be left
to decide; if someone wants to let people know that their fictional story
takes place in Islington in 1876 then they should be able to.
> b. There is a viewpoint that Coverage is a type of Subject or Keyword and should
> be subsumed under that element.
I think after splitting Description from Subject we shouldn't munge
Coverage back into it again; I don't expect there to be as many Coverage
elements flying about as Subject/Keyword and it would be a bind to have
Coverage's somewhat different spatial/temporal semantics "cluttering up"
Subject IMHO.
Here's a questions of my own:
To me coverage.polygon seems to already provide the functionality of
coverage.x.min, coverage.x.max, coverage.y.min, coverage.y.max, etc, in
that it specifies a region. Indeed a polygon could generalise a region
to allow a 3d or 4d volume to be defined with something like:
<meta name="DC.Coverage.polygon" content="[ 0.0 -0.2 0.15,
0.9 0.0 0.15,
0.0 0.0 0.15,
0.0 -0.2 -0.15,
0.9 0.0 -0.15,
0.0 0.0 -0.15,
0.0 0.0 -0.15 ]">
(nicking the coordinate syntax un-ashamedly from OpenInventor/VRML)
Is this something that coverage.polygon could be extended to be used
for? It might prove very useful in things like VRML or astronomy for
example (consider a document discussing a sub space contained within a
VRML model for example).
Tatty bye,
Jim'll
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
|