On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Jordan Reiter wrote:
> After all, if there going to use the Dublic Core Metadata, they
> should use Dublin Core metadata, right?
Jordan,
Resource Type and Format are the only places where Dublin Core is in the
vocabulary business, and Format only to the extent that we have adopted
another (widely used) scheme in order to facilitate purely technical
operations. Otherwise, DC only regulates what's to the left of
"CONTENT=".
Dublin Core is not a cataloging code, nor is it a thesaurus,
it is just an element list. That's why the SCHEME qualifier exists,
after all! For the content of many DC data elements, including
Resource Type, there are decades/centuries worth of established
and heavily used vocabulary schemes. Where is the benefit of insisting
on DC developing and maintaining its own canonical scheme which would
outweigh the loss of information from relegating established schema to
DC extensions?
Resource Type is analogous to Subject and Coverage: just one
more bucket into which *relevant and appropriate* data can be flung. We
don't regulate vocabulary in the Subject element, and I don't think it's
helpful for DC to regulate the vocabulary used in the Resource Type
element to the point of excommunicating existing schemes.
--Robin
"You can get more with a kind word
and a two-by-four than you can with just a kind word"
--Babylon 5
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
|