R. Wendler felt an urge to reveal at 9:31 AM -0500 on 1997-09-23:
> One more comment to follow on Arthur and Jon's messages: some months ago,
> I raised the point that we anticipate large quantities of DC data to be
> generated from existing data in other schemes, and that therefore the
> definition of Resource Type as being drawn from a single authoritative
> list was unrealistic. I would guess that more data will be converted
> into DC than created in DC, and we have to take that into account. This
> view received some support, and I sincerely hope the definition will be
> changed to admit other vocabularies to be used in the Resource Type
> element.
Well, one problem is that essentially Dublin Core shouldn't be made to
embrace everyone's individual formats and schemes (schemae? schemi?)
because Dublin Core is in its own right its own sort of scheme, right? So
why don't people just list those types as proprietary. I mean, I don't
know why someone would put
NAME="DC.Resource-Type" CONTENT="This content not supported by DC"
when they could just do
NAME="MyProprietarySys.Resource-Type" CONTENT="This content supported by
MyProprietarySys"
instead. After all, if there going to use the Dublic Core Metadata, they
should use Dublin Core metadata, right?
--------------------------------------------------------
[ Jordan Reiter ]
[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
[ "Don't you realize that intellectual people ]
[ are all ignorant because they can't spray ]
[ paint that small?" ]
--------------------------------------------------------
|