I completely disagree with this view but don't have the time to discuss it now.
Misha
> In the DC-4 workshop in Canberra we decided that Dublin Core should
> have permit refining of the basic element set by three qualifiers:
> type, scheme and lang. This give us the building blocks for what I
> would like to lable the extended form of metadata. For instance
>
>
> Relation:
> Type: IsBasedOn
> Scheme: URL
> value: http://foo.bar.com/
>
> We also agreed that it should be possible to abbreviate this to something like
>
> Relation.IsBasedOn (SCHEME=URL) http://foo.bar.com/
>
> which is what I would call the compact form
>
> Another example would be
>
> Creator:
> Type:PersonalName
> value: Type Address
> Scheme: email
> value: [log in to unmask]
>
> or in compact form:
>
> Creator.PersonalName.Address (SCHEME=email) [log in to unmask]
>
> Now, what the Relations work group is saying is that Relationships
> should be described something like
>
> Relation:
> Type: IsBasedOn
> Scheme: URL
> Identifier: http://foo.bar.com/
>
> When doing that,
>
> 1.) they break the compact form we've settled in Canberra
>
> 2.) they tacitly introduce a new qualifier Identifier
>
>
> Please not that the set of qualifiers decided at DC-4 were decided at
> workshop plenum, and I will accept the Relations report modification
> of the basic set of Dublin Core qualifiers unless there is another
> decision in plenum to the effect that the number of acceptable
> qualifiers is increased to include Identifier at another Dublin
> workshop.
>
>
>
>
> Yours
>
>
> Sigfrid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
|