Roy - Thanks for your draft. Considering the minimalist
1. I realise that DC has been explicitly restricted to DLO's, but
I wonder if something like "Interactive" or "Form" is needed to
cater for the entry point into applications on the web -
which do exist as "documents" in their own right (inasmuch as
there is e.g. often a discreet html file at the top somewhere)
but semantically are *not* a sub-type of "text".
2. I think that it will be difficult to avoid something
like "Collection" or "Compound" at the top level.
3. "Alphanumeric" is a slightly strange qualifier for "Data".
It could be taken to exclude non ascii/human-readable formats.
I do not think this was your intention.
4. There is a more than passing resemblance of the
list with the primary MIME types
(text, image, audio, video, application, ...).
Andrew - perhaps you could add this to your list of
sources, along with EndNote and ProCite ;-).
Roy Tennant wrote:
> The recent discussion on DC Resource Types
> I have now divided my original proposal into two:
> 1) The Minimalist Draft - ...
> 2) The Structuralist Draft - ...
> Another somewhat major change is replacing "Document" with "Text".
> I am convinced that given the top levels we are discussing Text
> makes much more sense than Document.
Hear hear. "Document" should be reserved for the next level up -
as in "DLO"s. "Text" is a sensible clarification for a *DLO-type*
(and agrees with the MIME type!).
> Everything is available, as before, at:
Dr Simon Cox - Australian Geodynamics Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Exploration & Mining, PO Box 437, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
T: +61 8 9389 8421 F: +61 8 9389 1906 [log in to unmask]